Full text of "The New Cambridge History of India"

See other formats

The world famous Taj Mahal is but one of the many magnificent buildings
erected by the Mughal emperors who ruled India from the early sixteenth
century through to the middle of the nineteenth. To date scholars have
considered the most splendid of these works built by the rulers, while the
lesser known or remotely situated structures have been ignored altogether. In
this volume, Professor Catherine Asher considers the entire scope of architec-
ture built under the auspices of the imperial Mughals and their subjects.

Professor Asher covers the precedents of Mughal style and traces the archi-
tectural development of each monarchical reign. She shows that the evolution
of imperial Mughal architectural taste and idiom was directly related to
political and cultural ideology. This was the case from the planting of an
ordered and regular garden, symbolic of paradise, and the building of state
mosques, to the construction of an entire planned city, indicative of the
emperor’s role as father to his people. Construction outside the center, which
was often carried out by the nobility, was as important as developments within
the major cities. Catherine Asher demonstrates how these agents of the
emperor curried favor with their rulers by building large and permanent
edifices in the imperial Mughal style.

Even though Mughal authority diminished considerably in the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries, the imperial Mughal architectural style and
taste served as a model for that in developing splinter states. This book shows
how it represented the cultural and social values of the Mughals, which were
cherished by Muslims living increasingly under western colonial rule.

In Architecture of Mughal India Catherine Asher presents the first compre-
hensive study of Mughal architectural achievements. The work is lavishly
illustrated and will be widely read by students and specialists of South Asian
history and architecture as well as by anyone interested in the magnificent
buildings of the Mughal empire.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE NEW CAMBRIDGE HISTORY

OF INDIA

Architecture of Mughal India

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE NEW CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF INDIA

General editor Gordon Johnson

Director, Centre of South Asian Studies, University of
Cambridge, and Fellow of Selwyn College

Associate editors C. A. Bayly

Professor of Modern Indian History, University of
Cambridge, and Fellow of St Catharine’s College

and John F. Richards

Professor of History, Duke University

Although the original Cambridge History of India , published between
1922 and 1937, did much to formulate a chronology for Indian history
and describe the administrative structures of government in India, it has
inevitably been overtaken by the mass of new research published over
the last fifty years.

Designed to take full account of recent scholarship and changing con-
ceptions of South Asia’s historical development, The New Cambridge
History of India will be published as a series of short, self-contained
volumes, each dealing with a separate theme and written by a single
person, within an overall four-part structure. As before, each will
conclude with a substantial bibliographical essay designed to lead non-
specialists further into the literature.

The four parts are as follows:

I The Mughals and their Contemporaries.

II Indian States and the Transition to Colonialism.

Ill The Indian Empire and the Beginnings of Modern Society.

IV The Evolution of Contemporary South Asia.

A list of individual titles already published and those in preparation will
be found at the end of the volume.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE NEW
CAMBRIDGE
HISTORY OF

INDIA

I : 4

Architecture of Mughal India
CATHERINE B. ASHER

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ART HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Cambridge

UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, ny iooi 1-42 i i, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vie 3207, Australia

Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1992
Reprinted 2001, 2003

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this hook is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Asher, Catherine Ella Blanshard.

Architecture of Mughal India / Catherine B. Asher,
p. cm. - (The New Cambridge history of India)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

isbn o 521 26728 5

1. Architecture, Mogul. 2. Architecture, Islamic - India.

1. Title. 11. Series.

DS436.N47 1992
[nai 502]

954 s - dc20
[720'. 954] 91-31572 CIP

isbn 0521 26728 5 hardback

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONTENTS

List of plates

page viii

General editor's preface

xvii

Preface

xix

List of abbreviations

xxiii

Glossary

XXV

Map of major pre- Mughal and Mughal

sites xxx

1 Precedents for Mughal architecture i

2 The beginnings of Mughal

architecture 19

3 The age of Akbar 39

4 Jahangir: an age of transition 99

5 Shah Jahan and the crystallization of

Mughal style 169

6 Aurangzeb and the Islamization of

the Mughal style 252

7 Architecture and the struggle for
authority under the later Mughals

and their successor states 292

Bibliographical essays 335

Index 357

9 9

Vll

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PLATES

1 Plan of Aibek’s Jami c mosque (the Quwwat al-Islam

mosque), Delhi. After J. A. Page P a g e 3

2 Screen of Aibek’s Jami c mosque 5

3 c Alai Darwaza, Quwwat al-Islam mosque, Delhi 7

4 Plan of Jami c mosque, Lodi Gardens, Delhi 12

5 Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque, Delhi 13

6 Pool, Bagh-i Nilufar (Lotus garden), Dholpur 23

7 Plan of Babur’s mosque (Kabuli Bagh mosque), Panipat 2 6

8 Babur’s mosque, Panipat 27

9 Mir Hindu Beg’s mosque, Sambhal 29

10 Mir Baqi’s mosque (the Baburi mosque), Ayodhya 3 1

1 1 Sher Mandal, Delhi 3 3

1 2 Humayun’s mosque (the Kachpura mosque), Agra 3 5

13 Mihrab on screen around Amir Khusrau’s tomb, Delhi 36

14 Humayuni mosque, Fatehabad 37

1 5 Gate, Khair al-Manazil mosque, Delhi 42

1 6 Partial facade, tomb of Ataga Khan, Delhi 43

1 7 Tomb of Adham Khan, Delhi 44

18 Humayun’s tomb, Delhi 45

19 Plan of Humayun’s tomb. After A. Volwahsen 47

20 Akbar’s palace, Ajmer 48

21 Jahangiri Mahal, Agra fort, Agra 49

22 Plan of major structures at Akbar’s palace, Fatehpur Sikri.

After Attilio Petr uccioli 53

23 Buland Darwaza, Fatehpur Sikri. American Institute of

Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 54

24 Plan of the Jami c mosque, Fatehpur Sikri 5 5

• # «

Vlll

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

25 Jami c mosque, Fatehpur Sikri. American Institute of Indian

Studies, Center for Art and Archaeology 56

26 Tomb of Shaikh Salim Chishti, Fatehpur Sikri 57

27 Hiran Minar, Fatehpur Sikri. American Institute of Indian

Studies, Center for Art and Archaeology 59

28 Akbar’s throne, Public Audience Hall, Fatehpur Sikri. American

Institute of Indian Studies, Center for Art and Archaeology 60

29 Carved panel, Turkish Sultana’s House, Fatehpur Sikri.

American Institute of Indian Studies, Center for Art and
Archaeology 61

30 Akbar’s jharoka , exterior facade, Daftar Khana, Fatehpur
Sikri. American Institute of Indian Studies, Center for Art

and Archaeology 6 2

3 1 Diwan-i Khass, Fatehpur Sikri. American Institute of

Indian Studies, Center for Art and Archaeology 63

32 Interior pillar, Diwan-i Khass, Fatehpur Sikri. American

Institute of Indian Studies, Center for Art and Archaeology 6 4

33 Panch Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri 65

34 Govind Deva temple, Brindavan 69

35 Jagat Shiromani temple. Amber 70

36 Jharoka, Rohtas palace, Rohtas 71

37 Jami c mosque, Rajmahal 73

38 Plan of the Jami c mosque, Rajmahal 75

39 Minbar, Jami c mosque, Nagaur 77

40 Akbari mosque, Ajmer 78

41 Gate, dargah of Sayyid Husain Khing Sawar, Taragarh, Ajmer 79

42 Tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Gwalior 82

43 Tomb of Shah Quli Khan, Narnaul 83

44 Shah Quli Khan’s pavilion (the Jal Mahal), Narnaul 85

45 Tomb of Saqi Sultan, Rohtas 86

46 Mun c im Khan’s bridge, Jaunpur 87

47 Hammam , Jaunpur 89

48 Gate, Chunar fort, Chunar 90

49 Mosque of Habash Khan, Rohtas 91

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

50 Interior, Makhsus Khan’s mosque (the Jami c mosque), Hajipur 93

5 1 Murad Khan Qaqshal’s mosque (the Kherua mosque), Sherpur 95

52 Jami c mosque, Malda 96

53 Nim Serai Minar, Malda 97

54 Jahangir’s throne, now in the Agra fort 103

5 5 Shah Begum’s tomb, Allahabad 105

56 Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra. American Institute of Indian Studies ,

Center for Art and Archaeology 107

5 7 Interior top story, Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra 109

58 Gate, Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra. American Institute of Indian

Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 1 1 1

59 Detail, pavilion, Jahangiri Quadrangle, Lahore fort, Lahore 1 14

60 Interior dome, Kala Burj, Lahore fort. Ebba M. Koch 1 1 5

6 1 Tiles, exterior walls, Lahore fort, Lahore 1 16

62 Interior dome, Maryam al-Zamani’s mosque (the Begum Shahi

mosque), Lahore 1 1 7

6 3 Hunting pavilion, Pushkar 120

64 Pavilion, upper terrace, Chesma-i Nur, Ajmer 121

65 Pavilion, lower terrace, Chesma-i Nur, Ajmer 123

66 Garden, Achibal .Jonathan M. Fishman 125

67 Pool, Vernag 126

68 Tower, Sheikhupura 127

69 Serai Nur Mahal, Serai Nur Mahal. Ebba M. Koch 129

70 Pavilion, Bagh-i Nur Afshan (the Ram Bagh), Agra 130

7 1 Tomb of I c timad al-Daula, Agra. American Institute of Indian

Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 1 3 1

72 Detail of inlay, Ptimad al-Daula’s tomb, Agra 133

73 Interior top story, Ptimad al-Daula’s tomb, Agra. Linda Connor 135

74 Plan of Shahi Bagh (the Moti Bagh), Ahmadabad. American

Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 136

75 Shahi Bagh, Ahmadabad. American Institute of Indian Studies ,

Center for Art and Archaeology 137

76 Tomb of Shaikh Wajih al-Din, Ahmadabad. American Institute

of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 138

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

77 Serai Doraha, Lahore-Delhi road. Wayne Begley 139

78 Tomb of Muhammad Mumin Husaini, Nakodar. Subhash Parihar 14 1

79 Mirza c Aziz Koka Khan-i A c zam > s tomb, Delhi 142

80 Entrance, serai, Chatta 143

81 Partial facade, Kanch Mahal, Agra 144

82 Mu c tamad Khan’s mosque, Agra 145

83 Detail of Mu c tamad Khan’s mosque, Agra 146

84 Khusrau’s tomb, Allahabad 147

85 Interior dome, Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb, Allahabad 148

86 Interior, Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb 149

87 Gate, Shah Qasim Sulaiman’s dargah , Chunar 1 50

88 Detail of gate, Shah Qasim Sulaiman’s dargah , Chunar 1 5 1

89 Iftikhar Khan’s tomb, Chunar 152

90 Plan of Iftikhar Khan’s tomb, Chunar 153

91 Shah Daulat’s tomb (the Chotti Dargah), Maner 1 54

92 Plan of Shah Daulat’s tomb, Maner 155

93 Tomb of Makhdum Sahib (the Maskan-i Barari tomb),

Champanagar 156

94 Bukhari mosque, Bihar Sharif 157

95 Bridge, Khurramabad 158

96 Central mihrab, Mirza Ma c sum’s Jami c mosque, Patna 1 59

97 Jami c mosque, Atiya. David McCutchion 161

98 Jahangiri Mandir, Orchha 162

99 Bir Singh’s palace, Datia 163

100 Entrance, Bir Singh’s palace, Datia 165

1 01 Jugal Kishore temple, Brindavan 166

102 Raja Rani temple, Kharagpur 167

103 Jahangir’s tomb, Lahore. Marcella Nesom 173

104 Pavilions on Ana Sagar, Ajmer 175

105 Jami c mosque, Ajmer 176

106 Mihrab, Jami c mosque, Ajmer 177

107 Pavilion within the Shah Burj (the Shish Mahal), Lahore fort,

Lahore 1 80

108 Pavilion within the Shah Burj (the Naulakha), Lahore fort, Lahore 1 8 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

109 Exterior, Chehil Sutun (the Diwan-i c Amm or Public Audience

Hall), Agra fort, Agra 183

1 10 Jbaroka from inside the Public Audience Hall, Agra fort, Agra.

American Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and
Archaeology 184

1 1 1 Throne, in a quadrangle known as the Macchi Bhavan, with the

Private Audience Hall in the rear, Agra fort, Agra. American
Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 1 8 5

1 12 Interior, Shah Burj (the Musamman Burj), Agra fort, Agra.

American Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and
Archaeology 18 6

1 1 3 Exterior view of the public viewing pavilion, Agra fort, Agra 1 87

1 14 The Nagina mosque, Agra fort, Agra. American Institute of

Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 188

1 1 5 Jami c mosque (the Moti mosque), Agra fort, Agra 1 89

1 16 Jami c mosque, Agra 190

1 1 7 Plan of the Jami c mosque, Agra 1 9 1

/•*

1 1 8 Plan of the Shahjahanabad fort (the Red Fort), Delhi. After

O. Reuther 192

1 19 Jharoka> Daulat Khana-i Khass o c Amm (the Public Audience

Hall), Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi. American Institute of Indian
Studies y Center for Art and Archaeology 195

120 Interior, Shah Burj, Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi. American

Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 197

121 Exterior, Daulat Khana-i Khass (Private Audience Hall),

Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi. American Institute of Indian Studies ,

Center for Art and Archaeology 198

122 Scales of justice, Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi. American Institute

of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 199

123 Pool, Imtiyaz Mahal (the Rang Mahal), Shahjahanabad, Delhi.

American Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and
Archaeology 201

124 Jami c mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi 203

♦ t

Xll

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

125 Interior niche, Jami c mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

1 26 Raushan Ara’s tomb, Delhi. American Institute of Indian Studies ,
Center for Art and Archaeology

127 Jharoka, Lai Mahal, Bari

128 Pavilion, Sheikhupura

129 Pavilion, Shalimar garden, Srinagar

130 Tank, Shalimar garden, Lahore

1 3 1 Tomb of Mumtaz Mahal (the Taj Mahal), Agra. American
Institute of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology

132 Mosque of Mulla Shah Badakhshi, Srinagar

1 3 3 Chauburji, Lahore

1 34 Mihrab, Jami c mosque, Thatta

135 Entrance, A c zam Khan’s serai, Ahmadabad. American Institute
of Indian Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology

1 3 6 Tomb of Khwaja Husain, Ajmer

137 Mihrab, Miyan Bai’s mosque, Ajmer

138 c Idgah, Merta

1 39 Muhammad Sharif Quraishi’s mosque (the Kachehri mosque),
Didwana

140 Wazir Khan’s mosque, Lahore. Marcella Nesom

14 1 Central bay of facade, mosque of Maqbul (Dai Anga’s mosque),
Lahore

142 Shaikh Chilli’s tomb, Thanesar

143 Muqarrab Khan’s tomb, Panipat

144 Tomb of Firuz Khan, Agra

145 Detail of carving on entrance, Firuz Khan’s tomb, Agra

146 Interior dome, Chini-ka Rauza, Agra

147 Shahi Madrasa mosque, Agra

148 c Idgah, Agra

149 Central mihrab, Saif Khan’s Tdgah, Patna

1 50 Central entrance, mosque of Hajji Tatar, Patna

1 5 1 Mosque of Habib Khan Sur, Bihar Sharif

1 52 Raja Bahroz’s mosque, Kharagpur

153 Tomb of Malik Wisal, Akbarpur

204

205

206

207

209

210

211

216

217

219

220

221

222

22 3

22 4

22 5

229

2 3°

2 3 T

2 33

2 34

2 35

236

2 37

238

2 39

240

2 4 T

Xlll

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

1 54 Mosque, Lalbagh fort, Dhaka 243

155 Palace pavilion (the Sangi Dalan), Rajmahal 244

1 56 Lukochori Darwaza, Gaur 245

157 Interior courtyard, Rai Mukhand Das’ mansion, Narnaul 247

1 5 8 Ganesh Pol, palace, Amber 248

1 59 Jai Mandir (the Shish Mahal), palace, Amber 249

160 Facade, Moti mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi 256

1 61 Courtyard wall, Moti mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi 257

162 Badshahi mosque, Lahore 258

163 Detail of interior stucco, Badshahi mosque, Lahore 259

164 c Idgah, Mathura 261

165 Delhi gate, Aurangabad 263

166 Tomb of Rabi c a Daurani (the Bibi-ka Maqbara), Aurangabad 264

167 Tomb of Jahan Ara, Delhi 265

168 Mosque of Zinat al-Nisa, Delhi 266

169 Tomb of Shaikh c Ala al-Din (the Sola Khamba), Ajmer 267

170 Mosque of Sayyid Muhammad, Ajmer 268

1 71 c Abd Allah Khan’s wife’s tomb, Ajmer 269

172 Jami c mosque, Merta 270

173 Sardar Khan’s tomb, Ahmadabad. American Institute of Indian

Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 271

174 Interior dome, tomb of Dai Anga, Lahore 273

175 Gate from southwest, madrasa of Ghazi al-Din, today Zakir

Husain College, Delhi 274

176 Mosque in madrasa of Ghazi al-Din, Delhi 275

177 Jami c mosque, Mathura 276

178 Pavilion on courtyard, Jami c mosque, Mathura 277

179 Jami c mosque, Gwalior 278

180 Partial facade, Gynavapi mosque, Benares 279

18 1 Jami c mosque (Aurangzeb’s mosque), Benares 280

182 Entrance, Da c ud Khan’s serai, Daudnagar 281

183 Nauratan, Bihar Sharif 282

184 Interior of dome, mosque of Khwaja c Amber, Patna 283

185 Tomb of Fateh Khan, Gaur 284

xiv

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

1 86 Audience Hall, Lalbagh, Dhaka 285

187 Satgumbad mosque, Dhaka 286

188 Mosque of Khan Muhammad Mirza, Dhaka 287

189 Interior, mosque of Hajji Khwaja Shahbaz, Dhaka 288

190 Tomb of Khwaja Anwar-i Shahid, Burdwan 289

191 Mosque of Zain al- Abidin (the Lai mosque), Aurangabad 290

192 Shah c Alam Bahadur’s mosque (the Moti mosque), Delhi 294

193 Farrukh Siyar’s gate, Dargah Bakhtiyar Kaki, Delhi 295

194 Muhammad Shah’s tomb, Delhi 296

195 Partial facade, Raushan al-Daula’s mosque (the Sunahri mosque),

Chandni Chowk, Delhi 297

196 Fakhr al-Masajid, Delhi 298

197 Muhtasib’s mosque, Delhi 299

198 Mosque of Tahawwur Khan, Delhi 300

199 Jantar Mantar, Delhi 301

200 Raushan al-Daula’s mosque (the Sunahri mosque), Darayaganj,

Delhi 302

201 Qudsiya Bagh mosque, Delhi. American Institute of Indian

Studies , Center for Art and Archaeology 303

202 Mosque of Qudsiya Begum and Javid Khan (the Sunahri mosque),

Delhi 304

203 Qudsiya Begum’s Shahi Mardan mosque, Delhi 305

204 Safdarjang’s tomb, Delhi 306

205 Lai Bangala tomb, Delhi 307

206 Lai Kunwar’s mosque, Delhi 308

207 Mosque of Hamid c Ali Khan, Delhi 309

208 Interior column, Hamid c Ali Khan’s mosque 3 1 1

209 c Ali Jah’s pavilion, Ajmer 312

210 c Idgah, Ajmer 313

21 1 c Abd Allah Khan’s tomb, Ajmer 314

212 Hawa Mahal, Jaipur 315

213 Baradari, Lahore fort 317

2 1 4 Palace, Dig, Bharatpur District 3 1 9

215 Hasan Reza Khan’s mosque (the Chowk mosque), Faizabad 320

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

LIST OF PLATES

216 Bahu Begum’s tomb, Faizabad 321

217 Gate, Kaiser Bagh in 1858, Lucknow. Attributed to Felice Beatto ,

courtesy of Rosie Llewellyn-Jones 322

218 Rumi Darwaza, Lucknow. Rosie Llewellyn-Jones 323

219 Tomb of La c l Khan, Benares 325

220 Tomb of Shamsher Khan, Shamshernagar 326

221 Mosque of Mir Ashraf, Patna 327

222 Bawli Hall mosque, Patna 328

223 Jami c mosque (the Katra mosque), Murshidabad 329

224 Munni Begum’s Jami c mosque (the Chowk mosque), Murshidabad 33 1

225 Murshidabad palace, Murshidabad 332

226 Sadiq c Ali’s mosque (the Chotte Chowk-ki Masjid), Murshidabad 333

xvi

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

The New Cambridge History of India covers the period from the beginning of
the sixteenth century. In some respects it marks a radical change in the style of
Cambridge Histories, but in others the editors feel that they are working firmly
within an established academic tradition.

During the summer of 1896, F. W. Maitland and Lord Acton between
them evolved the idea for a comprehensive modern history. By the end of the
year the Syndics of the University Press had committed themselves to the
Cambridge Modern History , and Lord Acton had been put in charge of it. It
wasfhoped that publication would begin in 1 899 and be completed by 1904, but
the first volume in fact came out in 1902 and the last in 1910, with additional
volumes of tables and maps in 19 11 and 1912.

The History was a great success, and it was followed by a whole series of
distinctive Cambridge histories covering English Literature, the Ancient
World, India, British Foreign Policy, Economic History, Medieval History,
the British Empire, Africa, China and Latin America; and even now other new
series are being prepared. Indeed, the various Histories have given the Press
notable strength in the publication of general reference books in the arts and
social sciences.

What has made the Cambridge Histories so distinctive is that they have never
been simply dictionaries or encyclopedias. The Histories have, in H. A. L.
Fisher’s words, always been ‘written by an army of specialists concentrating
the latest results of special study’. Yet, as Acton agreed with the Syndics in
1896, they have not been mere compilations of existing material but original
works. Undoubtedly many of the Histories are uneven in quality, and some
have become out of date very rapidly, but their virtue has been that they have
consistently done more than simply record an existing state of knowledge: they
have tended to focus interest on research and they have provided a massive
stimulus to further work. This has made their publication doubly worthwhile
and has distinguished them intellectually from other sorts of reference book.
The editors of the New Cambridge History of India have acknowledged this in
their work.

The original Cambridge History of India was published between 1922 and
1937. It was planned in six volumes, but of these, volume 11 dealing with the
period between the first century ad and the Muslim invasion of India never
appeared. Some of the material is still of value, but in many respects it is now

xvii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

out of date. The last fifty years have seen a great deal of new research on India,
and a striking feature of recent work has been to cast doubt on the validity of
the quite arbitrary chronological and categorical way in which Indian history
has been conventionally divided.

The editors decided that it would not be academically desirable to prepare
a new History of India using the traditional format. The selective nature of
research on Indian history over the past half-century would doom such a
project from the start and the whole of Indian history could not be covered in
an even or comprehensive manner. They concluded that the best scheme would
be to have a History divided into four overlapping chronological volumes, each
containing about eight short books on individual themes or subjects. Although
in extent the work will therefore be equivalent to a dozen massive tomes of the
traditional sort, in form the New Cambridge History of India will appear as a
shelf full of separate but complementary parts. Accordingly, the main divisions
are between i. The Mughals and their Contemporaries , n. Indian States and
the Transition to Colonialism , in. The Indian Empire and the Beginnings of
Modern Society , and iv. The Evolution of Contemporary South Asia .

Just as the books within these volumes are complementary so too do they
intersect with each other, both thematically and chronologically. As the books
appear they are intended to give a view of the subject as it now stands and to
act as a stimulus to further research. We do not expect the New Cambridge
History of India to be the last word on the subject but an essential voice in the
continuing discussion about it.

xviii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE

Just over fifty years have passed since Percy Brown summarized what was then
known about Mughal architecture in his fifty-page contribution to volume iv
of the original Cambridge History of India. We have learned a great deal since
then as we have probed primarily the imperial monuments produced under
Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan. But our focus has been more on individual
monuments than on the larger picture of Mughal architecture. That compre-
hensive view must be based on an analysis of individual monuments, but how
those monuments relate to common themes and to the larger enterprise of the
Mughal empire is the tale most importantly told.

Volumes in the New Cambridge History of India series are intended to
summarize what is currently known about a subject. This volume, however,
seeks to go beyond that mandate both by presenting a great deal of new
material and also by providing a framework for understanding Mughal archi-
tecture. As indicated by the bibliographical essays at the end of this volume,
much of the material presented here is drawn from old field reports of the
Archaeological Survey of India, list-like memoirs on sites, and epigraphical
reports. But many of the monuments are “discoveries” I made in the course of
extensive field work and are presented here for the first time. I see this volume,
though, as much more than a catalogue presentation of monuments. Rather, it
represents a first-ever attempt to organize this vast body of raw data - essen-
tially the monuments themselves - into a coherent framework. The results are
intended more as a springboard from which future research might commence
than as a final statement on Mughal architecture.

When I was first approached by the editor of the series to write a volume on
Mughal architecture, the unstated understanding was that it would essentially
cover the first 150 years of Mughal art, with an emphasis on the period from
1565 to 1658, traditionally considered the apex of artistic production. How-
ever, extending the study of architectural production to 1858, the end of the
Mughal regime, better reflects historical and cultural developments throughout
the period.

This work is organized chronologically. It commences with a short chapter
on the precedents of the Mughal style. More coverage here is given to Indian
precedents than to Timurid ones because this volume belongs to a series on
India. Subsequent chapters coincide with monarchical reigns. Chapter 2 is

xix

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE

concerned with the period when India was ruled by the first Mughal emperors,
Babur and Humayun; chapter 3 is concerned with Akbar’s reign, a period of
consolidation and nascent maturity in Mughal history; chapter 4 covers
Jahangir’s rule, a time usually regarded as a transition between Akbar’s inno-
vative reforms and Shah Jahan’s formalization of the Mughal state; chapter 5
considers Shah Jahan and the crystallization of Mughal architecture; chapter 6
concerns architecture under Aurangzeb and chapter 7 deals with architecture
under the later Mughal rulers and their successor states. This last period, one
rarely considered in any discussion of Mughal art, is traditionally regarded as
a period of decline and decadence. I have here attempted to consider this
material on less judgmental grounds. In addition, much of the material covered
in chapter 7 is not strictly Mughal. Rather, it concerns monuments constructed
under Islamic successor states in the case of Awadh and Murshidabad, under
Hindu states in the case of Dig and Jaipur, or even under a Sikh state in the case
of Amritsar. This material is included for two reasons. On the one hand there
is an issue of stylistic links, but more significantly there is the issue of
ideological links between the Mughals and these states. This is especially appar-
ent with Awadh and Murshidabad, the successor states discussed at greatest
length.

Each chapter is roughly divided into two sections. The first concerns
imperial patronage. The second section, intended as a mirror of the first,
discusses patronage of the nobility, regardless of religious affiliation, within the
various regions of the Mughal empire. I have chosen to discuss what might be
considered provincial architecture at length because it is the tension between
the architecture of the center and that in the provinces that reflects the very
nature of the Mughal state. This approach delves into issues of periphery
versus center that are, in essence, insights into the carefully yet constantly
fluctuating relationships between the ruler and nobility, vital for the
maintenance of the Mughal state. Thus a study of such patronage provides
insight into the motivation to build as well as into the relationship between
the emperor and his nobles. The Mughal state and its subjects are here consid-
ered from the Mughal point of view. That is the focus, for example, of com-
ments on the work of active architectural patrons such as Raja Man Singh and
Raja Bir Singh who were high-ranking Mughal amirs yet Hindu rajas in
their own right. Mughal architecture in this volume thus transcends a narrow
definition that might limit the focus to imperial or Muslim architecture.
Rather, Mughal architecture as discussed in this book reflects the nature of
a state that relies on its nobility as a link with lesser princes, landholders
and ordinary subjects and incorporates its non-Muslim majority into its
administration.

The term India is used throughout this volume in a historical sense and
includes the modern republics of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE

The geographical sub-divisions roughly reflect modern regions. Modern names
are used: for example, Rajasthan in lieu of Suba Ajmer or Suba Agra. This is
done for general ease of comprehension; those who wish to understand the
Mughal political divisions should consult Irfan Habib, An Atlas of the Mughal
Empire , Delhi, 1982.

The spellings adopted here generally conform to common ones. Joseph
Schwartzberg, A Historical Atlas of South Asia , Chicago, 1978, is the basis for
spelling of place names. Transcriptions of less well-known Persian words are
adapted from Steingass, Persian-English Dictionary. No diacriticals are used,
except the c ain, indicated by c . Words found in English language dictionaries are
not treated as foreign; others are italicized. On p. xxv is a glossary including
most terms used here.

The Islamic lunar calendar does not correspond with the solar Gregorian one
used by much of the modern world. Thus a monument dated in a particular
year of the Muslim, or Hijra, era, will usually fall into a frame corresponding
to contiguous halves of two solar years. Thus, for example, the Jami c mosque
at Fatehpur Sikri, bearing the date 982 ah, was built in 1574-75. However,
monuments here dated to the equivalent of a single Gregorian year have a
specific day or month in their dedicatory inscription, thus allowing a more
precise Gregorian date to be determined. In a few cases, textual or historical
references permit use of a single year.

The photographs, unless credited otherwise, were taken by the author. In
many cases the monuments, once situated in open gardens or unimpeded space,
are now part of crowded urban developments. Thus many views, less than ideal
and certainly not idyllic, are unavoidable.

The American Institute of Indian Studies, the Smithsonian Institution, the
Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at MIT and Harvard, the Univer-
sity of Minnesota and the American Council of Learned Societies helped to
support this research. For this, I am most grateful.

There are many people, far too many to mention here, whose expertise has
helped in the creation of this work. Among those to whom I am especially
indebted are V. R. Nambiar, M. A. Dhaky, Jagdish Yadav, the late Gyan Valu,
Vidu Bushan and N. Ravi of the American Institute of Indian Studies, Center
for Art and Archaeology, Varanasi, Pradeep Mehendiratta, Director of the
American Institute of Indian Studies, the current and recent Directors General
of the Archaeological Survey of India, especially M. C. Joshi. Janice Leoshko,
Thomas and Barbara Metcalf, Susan and John Huntington, John Richards,
Sajida Alvi, S. R. Dar, George Michell, Z. A. Desai, Donald Clay Johnson,
Joseph Schwartzberg, Annette Jones, Mark Zutkoff, and S. M. Yunus Jaffery all
provided immeasurable help and advice. Molly Cole and Charles Griebel
patiently organized plates and plans. Philip Schwartzberg prepared the map.
Gill Thomas and Margaret Sharman were excellent editors.

xxi

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PREFACE

Tremendous credit goes to Tom and Alice Asher for enduring endless field
trips and dinner conversations centering on Mughal architecture. But above all
I must thank my husband, Rick, for his support of me and this project, for
hours of critical reading and constant encouragement. To him I dedicate this
book.

xxii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

ABBREVIATIONS

Ain

Akbar Nama

ARIE

ASIR

EIAPS

List

Maasir

Sourcebook

Tuzuk

Abu al-Fazl, A y in-i Akbari

Abu al-Fazl, Akbar Nama

Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy

Archaeological Survey of India Reports

Epigrapbia Indica: Arabic and Persian Supplement

List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments : Delhi Province

Samsam al-Daula Shah Nawaz Khan and c Abd al-Hayy, Maasir

al- Umar a

G. D. Lowry and M. Brand, Fatehpur-Sikri: A Sourcebook
Nur al-Din Muhammad Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri

xxiii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GLOSSARY

aiwan

aramgah

arcuated

bagh

Baghdadi octagon

bangala

baoli

baradari

baraka

bulghur khana
chajja

chakravartin

chandrashala

char bagh

chattri
chau chala

Chehil Sutun

chilla khana

chiraqdan

Chishti

chowk

chowk-i jilo khana
chuna

usually a vaulted entrance or hall, but in Mughal

India a pillared gallery

chamber within a palace for rest or sleeping

construction dependent on arches or the arch

principle

garden

an octagon with alternate sides larger than the inter-
mediate ones

a curved roof whose two sides meet at a single spine
or ridge; the term derives from the shape of roofs on
Bengali huts

a deep step well, found especially in western India
a pillared pavilion

divine power emanating from a saint’s shrine

a kitchen for the needy

overhanging eaves

an Indian term for a universal ruler

elaborate niche-like structure crowned with an ogee

arch

in Mughal India a garden divided into quadrants by
running water courses
a domed kiosk supported on pillars
a vault with four curved sides that meet at a curved
central ridge or spine

a 40-pillared hall; in the Mughal context a Public
Audience Hall
a saint’s house of meditation
lamp stand

the most popular sufi order in India; the major Chishti
saint discussed here is Mu c in al-Din; others include
Shaikh Salim Nizam al-Din and Bakhtiyar Kaki
a market; a public area
a forecourt

lime plaster, usually highly burnished

XXV

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GLOSSARY

dado

Dai Anga

dargah

darsban

darwaza

Daulat Khana-i Khass
Daulat Khana-i
Khass o c Amm
dig

Din-i Ilahi

Diwan-i c Amm

Diwan-i Khass

diwan-i bull

faqir

far man

faujdar

ghat

ghazi

Ghusl Khana

guldasta

gumbad

hadis (also hadith)

hajj

hammam

hasht behisbt
Husainiya

-Id

the finishing of an interior wall from the floor to
about waist height

a wet-nurse; the focus here is on imperial wet-nurses
who are women of considerable power and influence
a saint’s shrine, often the center of pilgrimage
beholding; in the Mughal context, the viewing of the
emperor at the jbaroka ; the practice derives from the
Hindu notion of beholding a deity
a gateway or entrance
a Private Audience Hall
a Public Audience Hall

cauldron

disciple-like relationship between Akbar and his
closest amirs

a popular name today for a Public Audience Hall
a popular name today for a Private Audience Hall
the Mughal finance minister
a holy man; an itinerant monk
an imperial decree or order
a law and order official; police
an embankment, usually stepped
a warrior for Islam

a private audience hall for the emperor’s closest
advisers
a finial

literally a dome, but often used for pre-Mughal
tombs

sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad

the pilgrimage to Mecca mandatory for all able

Muslims

a bath with hot, cold and warm chambers modeled on
ancient Romen baths; today these are often called
Turkish baths
eight-paradises

another term for Imambara, although Husainiya are

generally smaller than Imambara

Muslim festivals, one to break the fast of Ramadan

and the other a sacrificial festival on the tenth day of

the last month of the Muslim calendar

a mosque where the c Id prayers are said; often this

mosque consists only of a qibla wall

xxvi

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GLOSSARY

Imambara
Imtiyaz Mahal

jagir

jagirdar

Jami c mosque

jharoka

jharoka-i daulat khana
khass o c amm
jihad
jinn
jiziya
kafir

kar khana

kashi kari

khanqah

khutba

khwabgah

khwaja

khwajasera

kos minar

kungura

madrasa

mahzar

mansab

mansabdar

mansab dari

mehman khana

mihrab

minbar

muhtasib

murid

mutawali

a large hall for the celebration of Muharram and for
storing ta c ziya

a pavilion in Shah Jahan’s Delhi palace known as the
Hall of Distinction; today it is popularly called the
Rang Mahal

an assignment of revenues in lieu of salary
the holder of a jagir
pierced carved stone screen
a congregational mosque

an agricultural group found predominantly in north
India and modern Pakistan

a window or balcony from which an emperor dis-
plays himself to his subjects or nobles; a throne
the ceremonial viewing balcony in the Public
Audience Hall
holy war

a spirit who can be malevolent or benevolent

tax on non-Muslims

a non-Muslim; an idolater or pagan

workshop or center of production for goods required

within a palace

tile mosaic

a residential center for spiritual study

prayer legitimizing an Islamic ruler’s sovereignty

a chamber in a palace for sleeping

a title used by officials, religious scholars, and men of

distinction

a eunuch

conical towers that mark distances
battlements

a school for religious instruction, a college
a declaration; a decree
rank in the Mughal administrative system
rank holder

matters concerning rank
a guest chamber or house
a prayer niche in a qibla wall

a pulpit from which the Friday sermon is delivered
an official who supervises public morals
the follower or devotee of a pir , or spiritual guide
an attendant or superintendent of a mosque, religious
or charitable foundation

xxvii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GLOSSARY

Nahr-i Behisht
naqqar khana
nawab

oriel window
pedentive
pietra dura
pir

pishtaq

pyramidal vault

Qadam Rasul
Qadam Sharif

qal c a

qal c adar

qibla

rana

ratna

Sadarat

sadr

serai

sher hajji
simurgh

spandrel

squinch

Canal of Paradise; the canal that runs through the
Shahjahanabad palace

chamber within a palace where the ceremonial drums
are played to announce a ruler’s presence
a title; vice-regents of the Mughals, for example, the
Nawabs of Murshidabad and Awadh, although later
these houses shed ties with the Mughals
a projecting window, often balcony-like in appear-
ance, on a facade

a concave triangular surface that allows a square
structure to support a dome

design rendered by the inlay of hard precious and
semi-precious stones into marble
a sufi teacher or spiritual guide
a high portal or entrance, usually centrally
situated

a roof or covering over a rectangular space whose
four sides, usually curved, meet at a central ridge or
spine

a shrine containing an impression of the Prophet
Muhammad’s footprint

a shrine containing an impression of the Prophet

Muhammad’s footprint or that of c Ali, the Prophet’s

son-in-law, who is believed by Shias to be the

Prophet Muhammad’s rightful successor

a fort or fortified enclosure

the superintendent of a fort

the wall of a mosque that faces Mecca

common term in Rajasthan for a raja, a princely

chieftain

a temple particular to Bengal which is surmounted by
several spires

chief religious and legal office
chief theologian
an inn, caravanserai
an outer defensive wall

a mythical bird often associated with imperial and
Solomonic imagery

the triangular space between the curve of an arch and
the space enclosing it

an arch or system of gradually projecting and wider
arches placed diagonally at the internal angle of a

xxviii

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

GLOSSARY

suba

subadar

sufi

sulh-i kul

Takht-i Daulat
ta c ziya

tirtha

torana

trabeated

c ulema

c Urs

watan jagir
wazir
yuga
zamindar

zenana

square structure thus allowing it to be surmounted
by a dome
a province

the governor of a province
a mystic

literally, Peace to All, Akbar’s policy of universal

toleration

throne room

a portable model of the tomb of the Prophet’s grand-
son, Husain, at Karbala
a site of pilgrimage
a gateway, serpentine-like lintels
construction on a post and lintel principle
the scholars and jurists of Islam who have authority
over religious matters

the anniversary celebration at the tomb of a deceased
saint, ruler or member of the royal family
landholding on ancestral domain
prime minister

an era in the traditional Indian conception of time
a person who has the right to collect revenues from
specific lands

women’s quarters of a dwelling or palace

xxix

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Ghazna.

Abdai

Snnaqar.

/> .Achfcal

p.rt' 1 "'

Shc.khupura. AmriU> , f -.pk

Lahore* •Amritsa

Serai Amanaf Khan* .# **>' ^

«>« ~<» s 0 ji«r*

_ Nakodar* *^ -ty

Firuzpor. ,'b® J

Bataia ^ **

Serai Las'

S'*

Thanesar.

Fatehabad.

Panipal

•Hisat

Mahem.

Moradabad,

Jhauai. Delri '*

Sambhal

boundary of
Mughal Empire
in 1605

Srinagar

Gha/na

hot tndary of
Mughal Empire
in 1605

Delhi.

Agra

Patna

Allahabad

Ahmadabaa

Tv /7

B«dar.

•Golconda

Arabian Sea *B*iapur Ba

Bay of Bengal

Indian

Ocean

Narnaul.

Nagaur,

Mena

.D>dwana v

Amber#

•Jaipur

Chatta •

Bnndavan'

• Mathura

n . . •D«q
ona'atpuf* 9 .Agra

Fatohpur Sifcn

p “ s, ’ k ? N ^" 9 '* ana

Bar.

Dhotpur

Rann of Kutch

Ahmadabaa Sarvhej

Kathiaufar

Prnmnsula

*r a

too

b i a n

200 KILOMETERS

£ a

Dana

•Orchha

Chandert.

Lucknow. Fai/abaa ^Ayodhya

al «ya

M t s.

Jaunpur.

Varanasi

Allahabad* (Benarest.

Phulwa*

\ j, jfr

9 °*' • Hai<pur x& ^

AUVI #A<S r . **y • ^ ir .

•Maori,,

SaramG^* R

A *
i * *

l *

Snip* 1

'fit! H

.BurhanpiJ'

• Enora
Aurangabad-

" LUVMH.BBf, •O’*"

• Khurramabad * ’ # SttO
LJtunar Dal *< Jna 9 a,

s «*« * ***■*• /VKb *P ur

e' c teiha» Sna ”; * Ra

Pandua

Maida

Kharagpur

K-undui •
Mughal
in 1 609

•Gaur 5^^,.

Munth idabao.

Pabna •

Atiya

•Dhak,

•Ghunsa

Burdwan,

Bishnupur.

Gokumagar*

XXX

Major pre-Mughal and Mughal sites

xxxi

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 1

PRECEDENTS FOR
MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

In 1 526 a descendant of the Iranian house of Timur, Zahir al-Din Muhammad
Babur, better known today simply as Babur, defeated the last ruler of the Lodi
dynasty in a battle at Panipat, about 90 km north of Delhi. The Lodis were one
of many short-lived Islamic houses that had ruled over much of the Indian
subcontinent since the Islamic conquest of this area in 1192. Babur and his
successors, who continued to rule north India until 1858, were known as the
Mughals, a term Babur would not have liked, for originally it had a pejorative
connotation. In contemporary eyes Babur’s victory over Ibrahim Lodi was no
more consequential than the frequent campaigns that brought changes in
ruling power. However, well before the year 1600, during the reign of Babur’s
grandson, Akbar, it was clear that Mughal rule made a substantial impact on the
cultural, economic, and political development of the lands it controlled - an
area then called Hindustan. In the realm of architecture, the Mughals achieved
master-builder status, producing monuments such as the Taj Mahal, which
even today is considered one of the world’s most magnificent buildings.

Unlike the contemporary and powerful Islamic rulers of Iran and Turkey,
the Safavids and Ottomans, the Mughals ruled a land dominated by non-
Muslims, largely Hindus. Just as indigenous religions and traditions were
tolerated and in many cases even respected by the Mughal rulers, so, too, they
incorporated in their patronage of the arts, literature and music many
indigenous elements. Over their 300-year rule, Mughal attitudes toward the
indigenous Indian population - Hindu and Muslim - varied; so did Mughal
adaptation of earlier Indian art forms. During the earliest days of Mughal
patronage, little attention was paid to India’s non-Islamic architectural
traditions; however, during the reign of the third Mughal ruler, Akbar
(1556-1605), indigenous Indian elements, both Hindu and Muslim, were
incorporated consciously into Mughal structures. In subsequent Mughal archi-
tecture, patrons often abandoned the use of indigenous elements, seeking
instead forms and symbols that might affirm the Islamic character of the
Mughal house.

Mughal architecture is the product of innovative genius that borrowed from
Indian, Timurid and even European sources. The Mughal artists interpreted
these borrowed forms, both in terms of symbolism and style, to their own
purposes. However, to imagine, as many do, that Mughal architecture was the
first to make extensive use of indigenous motifs along with standard Islamic

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

forms - for example, domes and arches - is to overlook the heritage bequeathed
to them by earlier Indo-Islamic dynasties.

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Indian Muslim sources
The Delhi Sultanate , 1 1 92-1 451

Among the earliest remaining Islamic monuments in India are the foundations
of walled city and mosque at Banbhore near Thatta in Sind, Pakistan. The site
was commenced shortly after the birth of Islam, and is probably the earliest
Arab settlement in the South Asian continent. Other remains indicating an
early Islamic presence include a tomb dated to the mid-twelfth century found
at Bhadreshvar in the coastal regions of Gujarat in western India. Another
aspect of Islamic presence was the periodic incursions, more destructive than
constructive, intended to take booty, not to build any record of a permanent
presence. The incursions into India made by Mahmud of Ghazni in the
eleventh century were of this sort. However, in 1192, Qutb al-Din Aibek, a
military commander of the Afghan Ghorid dynasty, defeated the last Hindu
ruler of Delhi. Within a few years, a great deal of north India was under Ghorid
control, and in 1206 Aibek asserted his independence from the Ghorids,
declaring himself sultan of India. He and his successors built architecture that
served as one foundation of Mughal art.

Among the first concerns of the conqueror was the construction of a con-
gregational (Jami c ) mosque, necessary for the legitimization of the sultan in this
newly acquired territory as well as for the establishment and spread of Islam.
Aibek’s first mosque, significantly now called the Quwwat al-Islam or Might
of Islam, was erected in Delhi, the capital of the new Muslim rulers (Plate 1).
Constructed from the architectural members of temples, the mosque in its first
phases appears to be modeled loosely on a common form of Ghorid-period
mosques. Such mosques, following a general Iranian fashion, had a central open
courtyard surrounded by cloistered halls on three sides; the prayer chamber
was on the fourth side. 1 Each side had a central vaulted entrance or aiwan.
Hence, such mosques are known as four -aiwan types. In India their appearance
is somewhat modified, and by the Mughal period the term aiwan assumes a
different meaning. During this early period entrances are not vaulted. The
prayer chamber is situated on the west, the side that in India faces Mecca, thus
the direction toward which all Indian mosques are oriented. Variations of this
Iranian ionx-aiwan plan continue to be constructed even through the Mughal

1 Tokifusa Tsukinowa, “The Influence of Seljuq Architecture on the Earliest Mosques of the Delhi
Sultanate Period in India,” Acta Asiatica , 43, 1982, 54-60.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

150 feet

Plate i. Aibek’s Jami c mosque, known as the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, Delhi

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

period. In elevation, however, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque initially followed
traditional Indian building techniques. That is, the building in its initial phase
was strictly trabeated, built in the post-and-lintel system. This contrasts to the
more common arcuated or vaulted building types found throughout most
Muslim-dominated lands. In Indo-Islamic architecture, however, trabeated
buildings continued even through the Mughal period as one major mode of
construction. As we shall see, to assume as most writers have done that all
trabeated structures, especially in the case of Akbar’s Fatehpur Sikri, are a
revival or even conscious adaptation of Hindu forms is erroneous.

Aibek was evidently aware that his mosque, constructed entirely of elements
pillaged from Hindu and Jain monuments, resembled more a rearranged
temple than a traditional mosque. In 1198 he thus constructed an arched screen
(Plate 2) across the front of the prayer chamber so his mosque might more
closely mirror those in his homeland. This screen is richly adorned with
vertical bands of carved calligraphy and naturalistically growing vines. While
Arabic lettering, in this case verses from the Quran, typically embellishes the
facade of prayer chambers throughout the Islamic world, the appearance of
naturalistic, organic forms is a good deal more unusual. These naturalistic
forms, in lieu of the more flattened, abstracted patterns generally found in the
Ghorids’ Iranian homelands, doubtless can be traced to Indian masons con-
tinuing to work in indigenous modes.

A rapidly growing Muslim population necessitated a larger mosque. Thus
Aibek’s structure was doubled in size by his son-in-law and successor,
Iltutmish. Before the prayer chamber he also constructed an arched screen
whose ornamentation differed from that of Aibek’s. The motifs on Iltutmish’s
screen relate closely to those seen on Ghorid structures, for example the
Shah-i Mashhad Madrasa in Ghargistan, north Afghanistan. They are more
abstract than those on Aibek’s screen and carved in a deep flat relief. The
overall appearance is that of a rich tapestry, almost a horror vacui design. This
tendency toward intense patterning over an entire stone-carved surface
reappears in the early phases of Mughal architecture. Profuse surface decor-
ation is characteristic of much Islamic ornamentation, not just that of India.

Under Iltutmish, the subcontinent’s first monumental tombs were built.
One, known today as the Sultan Ghari tomb, was constructed for his son, and
a second was built for himself, both in Delhi. The interior of Iltutmish’s own
square-plan tomb was embellished in a fashion similar to his screen at the
Quwwat al-Islam mosque. Some thirty chapters of the Quran are engraved on
the tomb’s interior walls. The themes of the chapters selected from these
inscriptions include the oneness of God, the obligations of the devout, and the
power of God - all themes of inscriptions on the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and
its minaret, the Qutb Minar, both constructed under Aibek and Iltutmish. A
new theme was introduced in the inscriptions of Iltutmish’s tomb, one that

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Plate 2. Screen of Aibek’s Jami c mosque, known as the Quwwat al-Islam Mosque,

Delhi

became especially important for the Mughals, that is, eternal paradise as a
reward for the true believer on the Day of Judgment. 2 Thus commences in
India the tradition of paradisical imagery for tomb construction. Under the
Mughals and culminating with the Taj Mahal, this theme came to be used with
extraordinary effect, not only in inscriptions but in the entire conception of the
monument.

No major Islamic structures remain in India that date between the death of
Iltutmish in 1235 and the beginning of the fourteenth century. However, under
the Khalji Sultan c Ala al-Din (ruled 1296-1316), architecture assumed renewed
importance. Focusing on the monument that remained symbolically para-
mount, c Ala al-Din expanded the Quwwat al-Islam mosque to triple its
original size. Although the project was never completed, its vast scale mirrors
the ambitions of a prince who wished to become a second Alexander the Great.
He sought to incorporate not only south India into his domain, but China as

2 Anthony Welch, “Qur’an and Tomb: The Religious Epigraphs of Two Early Sultanate Tombs in
Delhi,” in Frederick M. Asher and G. S. Gai (eds.), Indian Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of
Art (New Delhi, 1985), pp. 256-67.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

well. In fact, the only remaining parts of the Khalji addition to the Quwwat al-
Islam mosque complex are an enormous unfinished minaret, pillared galleries
and an entrance portal on the south, known commonly as the c Alai Darwaza
(Plate 3). Dated 13 11, many epigraphs on this gate are not Quranic, but
hyperbole praising its patron, Sultan c Ala al-Din Khalji. Although it is not a
monumental structure, it is one that later builders, among them the early
Mughals looked upon as a source of inspiration.

A square-plan gate, its layout adheres closely to that of Iltutmish’s tomb. In
ornamentation, however, major differences exist. The exterior of Iltutmish’s
tomb is austere, composed largely of plain dressed stones. In contrast, the c Alai
Darwaza’s facade as well as interior is entirely faced with carved stones. This
ornamentation appears to be based on both indigenous Indian traditions as well
as non-Indian Islamic patterns. For example, the Arabic lettering, flat-cut
stencil-like arabesques, battlement motifs ( kungura ) and geometric patterns
derive from earlier Iranian traditions, while the carved lotus medallions and
budded creepers are adaptations of earlier Indian motifs.

By the Khalji period, Indo-Islamic culture had come into its own. Under-
scoring this is the contemporary work of Amir Khusrau, still considered one of
the greatest Indian poets. Writing in Persian, the official language of most
Muslim courts and kings in India, Khusrau used motifs such as the parrot,
mangoes and flowers only found in India to supplement Persianate imagery,
such as cedars and tulips, alien to the subcontinent. By this time, many motifs
- architectural and literary - had no strictly sectarian connotation. To call a
motif Hindu or Muslim has little meaning, for elements such as the lotus or
even trabeated architecture, still found in parts of c Ala al-Din’s extension to the
Quwwat al-Islam mosque, are now part of a well-established architectural
tradition developed under the Indian sultans.

The c Alai Darwaza is covered with carved stones and calligraphy that give
the appearance of a richly textured surface. Long strips of white marble, used
frequently for calligraphic bands, effectively stand out against the red sand-
stone ground of the facade. This concern for contrasting colors on a facade, also
seen for example on the Khalji-period Ukha mosque in Bayana, probably
ultimately is derived from the architectural traditions of the Turkish Seljuks. A
memory of Seljuk design was brought to India by nobles, intellectuals and
artisans fleeing the invading Mongols. Multi-colored facades of inlaid stone are
seen rarely over the next 200 years; however, beginning in the early sixteenth
century, facades inlaid with multi-colored stone are seen with greater
frequency. There is reason to believe that the c Alai Darwaza served as a direct
source of inspiration for these structures, which in turn were the inspiration for
the ornamentation on buildings such as the tomb of Ataga Khan (Plate 16),
constructed early in Akbar’s reign, or the Fatehpur Sikri Jami c mosque.

Following the Khaljis, the Tughluqs emerged as the ruling power. Assuming

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Plate 3. c Alai Darwaza, Quwwat al-Islam mosque, Delhi

control in 1320 over an area that included much of the Indian subcontinent,
their territory quickly diminished as provincial governors declared indepen-
dence from central authority, leaving them little more than Delhi and its
suburbs. While the dynasty nominally survived until 1412, Delhi was sacked in
1399 by the invasion of Timur, the ancestor of the Mughals.

The Tughluqs were prolific providers of architecture, especially under the
third ruler, Firuz Shah (r. 1351-88), whose extensive building campaigns were
in a sense a cover for his politically weak regime. In general, architecture under
the Tughluqs became increasingly austere into the fourteenth century. For
example, richly carved stone facades and interiors were replaced with plain
stucco veneers, and Quranic inscriptions rarely embellished any structure.
While Tughluq buildings may have been painted, multi-colored stones on their
surface were rare. With the exception of the four -aiwan mosque type, few of
the architectural forms and little of the ornamentation developed in their reign
appear to have had any direct bearing on Mughal buildings. Nevertheless, the
work of the Tughluqs foreshadows aspects of Mughal architecture.

Firuz Shah Tughluq constructed extensive earthworks, mosques, schools for
religious instruction (madrasa), as well as other edifices that were aimed at
enhancing the religious and economic well-being of his subjects. While such
projects fit well with the theoretical duty of a good Islamic ruler, in India
no sultan hitherto had built public works so extensively. The Mughals

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

subsequently did so, and like their Tughluq predecessors, they also provided
support for the benefit of all subjects. For example, the Tughluq sultans and
nobles endowed Hindu temples ; 3 so, too, under the Mughal dynasty, was
patronage provided for Hindu monuments. Even the Mughal Aurangzeb,
traditionally considered an iconoclast and temple destroyer, gave orders for the
protection of Hindus and their temples . 4 And some Hindu nobles under the
Mughals provided funds for Islamic buildings.

The tomb of the first Tughluq ruler, Ghiyas al-Din, reflects a further
development in paradisical imagery. While not unique to India, this imagery is
developed most fully in funereal architecture during the Mughal period.
Ghiyas al-Din’s tomb is located slightly to the west of this sultan’s massive
Delhi fortress, Tughluqabad. Originally connected to it by a long arched
bridge, the tomb is situated within pentagonal walls that mirror the nearby
larger fort. Today the square-plan tomb sits in the midst of grain fields, but
originally it was surrounded by a vast body of water, making the tomb, already
protected by sloping enclosure walls, even more inaccessible.

It has been suggested that the tomb’s fortress-like design reflects the politi-
cal instability of the time and that it was constructed during Ghiyas al-Din’s
own life so that he could use it to protect himself against foes. However, such
a structure could not provide long-term protection; rather, its setting in a pool
of water evokes numerous references in the Quran to the abundant waters of
paradise, an image so precious to the desert dwellers of Arabia, Islam’s birth-
place. This pool refers to the tank at which believers quench their thirst when
entering paradise. The association of water with funereal structures to denote
paradise will continue as a major motif in Mughal architecture.

While Iltutmish’s tomb is a virtual storehouse of Quranic verse and Ghiyas
al-Din Tughluq’s tomb is a private vision of paradise, Firuz Shah Tughluq’s
tomb is austere, appropriate for its location in the midst of an Islamic theo-
logical college. Also in the grounds of this madrasa, in close proximity to Firuz
Shah’s tomb, are small kiosk-like structures known as chattris. They have
domed superstructures supported by six or eight pillars. These chattris mark
the graves of deceased saints or men of sufficient piety to be buried in the
school’s grounds. The nearby tomb of Firuz Shah overlooks a large tank, an
appropriate location for a tomb. The tomb, characteristic of its period, is square
in plan. The exterior walls have a thick unembellished stucco veneer. The
interior is also stucco faced, generally plain, although the interior of the dome
is incised and polychromed to evoke an image of the heavens. In addition to
medallions and floral designs, the dome is inscribed with verses from the

3 Agha Mahdi Husain, Tughluq Dynasty (New Delhi, 1976), pp. 31 1-39.

4 Rajani Rajan Sen, “A Firman of Emperor Aurangzeb,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal , vn,

191 1, 690.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Quran and sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad ( hadis ). The hope of
paradise is a principal theme of these verses, a theme that will dominate the
iconography of Mughal tombs.

The successor states of the Tughluqs

As central Tughluq authority over regional territories weakened, Tughluq
governors asserted their independence, creating a series of successor states. In
the case of Deccani and Bengali governors, ties were severed with the Tughluq
masters as early as the mid-fourteenth century. Gradually through the early
fifteenth century other governors declared independence. Most of these
regions remained autonomous until the very beginning of the Mughal period.
Artistic trends to a large extent reflect political ones. That is, structures con-
structed in these areas during Tughluq domination or shortly thereafter are
modeled closely on the Tughluq architecture of Delhi. For example, the first
congregational mosque of the Ilyas Shahi dynasty (13 52—141 5; 1433-86) in
Bengal, the Adina mosque of Pandua built in 1374, is inspired in both plan and
overall appearance by Muhammad Shah Tughluq’s congregational mosque in
Delhi, commonly known as the Begumpuri mosque (c. 1343). So is the early-
fourteenth century Atala mosque in Jaunpur, the first congregational mosque
of the Sharqi dynasty. However, buildings constructed after the initial phase of
independence generally use plans and motifs indigenous to their area. This, as
we shall see, is a pattern also reflected in some of the late Mughal architecture
of the provinces.

The most dramatic examples of distinctly regional style are found in the
architectural traditions of Bengal and Gujarat. In Bengal, the form of the village
hut with its sloping roof, well suited for heavy rains, was adapted for tombs and
mosques, for example the mosque of Baba Adam (1483) in Rampal, today
located in Dhaka District, Bangladesh, and the Eklakhi tomb in Pandua, West
Bengal, datable to the fifteenth century. Probably the curved roof was used in
palace architecture as well, but we have no surviving examples. Similar roofs are
common in Mughal architecture commencing around the mid-seventeenth
century. Such roofs were called bangala in Mughal documents and were
often used by the end of the seventeenth century far from Bengal in Mughal
architecture.

Few other connections link architecture produced under the independent
sultans of Bengal with monuments subsequently erected under the Mughals.
For example, the delicate brick work seen in the Tantipora mosque in Gaur or
the exquisite stone carving on the Adina mosque in Pandua had little influence
on subsequent Mughal monuments. While a few motifs - among them the bell
and chain - are common to the architecture of both Sultanate Bengal and the
Mughals, these motifs are seen also in the Sultanate architecture of other realms,
notably Gujarat. Thus the claim of Akbar’s chronicler, Abu al-Fazl, that the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

“fine styles of Bengal” were crucial in the development of Akbari architecture
is little substantiated by the remains themselves.

In Gujarat, as in Bengal, architecture under the newly established Ahmad
Shahi dynasty (1408-1578) assumed a distinctly regional character. Features
found commonly on tombs, mosques and saints’ shrines ( dargahs ) include ones
such as serpentine-like gateways ( toranas ) or lintels above prayer niches
(mihrabs), bell-and-chain motifs carved on pillars and walls, pillars supporting
corbelled domes and ceiling insets, and carved panels often depicting trees, all
ultimately derived from Gujarati temple traditions. Because of these borrow-
ings, some scholars have assumed a conscious and continued Hindu influence.
More likely, however, these features were first used by local Hindu artisans
contracted to work on the Islamic architecture of the area, and their form, but
not their original meaning, became assimilated into the standard architectural
repertoire. Thus when many of these same ideas appear in the architecture
of Akbar, there is no reason to associate them with any particular sectarian
tradition.

Such features are not limited to Gujarat. They are also features of archi-
tecture in Mandu, related politically and geographically to Gujarat, and in
Chanderi. For example, serpentine brackets, seen on the mid-fifteenth-century
mosque at Sarkhej, Gujarat, also appear on the Jami c mosque in Chanderi and
on the tomb of Hoshang Shah in Mandu. Similarly, inlaid white marble was a
dominant building material in both Gujarat and Mandu. The concurrent use of
such features throughout western and part of north-central India has signifi-
cance for Mughal architecture, where these features are common. It is generally
assumed that artisans for Akbar’s palaces came from Gujarat, but the
widespread use of such motifs opens the possibility that they came from a
greater area.

More important than the borrowing of individual motifs from Gujarat is
the overall influence of the fifteenth-century dargah of Shaikh Ahmad
Khattu of Sarkhej on the design of Mughal tombs. This tomb, situated outside
of Ahmadabad, is a white marble shrine whose facade is embellished with
pierced carved screens ( jalis ). Both the material and screens became major
features of Mughal architecture. In addition, the tomb’s plan as well as the
juxtaposed colored stones used on the flooring had a major impact on Mughal
mausolea.

The early structures erected by the independent rulers in the Deccan, as in
the north, adhered closely to Tughluq models. However, unlike the monu-
ments of Gujarat and Bengal, Deccani architecture was subject to the influence
of Iranian Seljuk and Timurid forms in the course of developing its own
regional styles. Although this Seljuk influence has no bearing on Mughal art,
the Timurid influence is of concern here, for the Deccan felt the impact of
Iranian Timurid tradition before north India. For example, intersecting

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

pendentives, a Timurid device, appear in Bidar on the tomb of Sultan Kalim
Allah (d. 1527), shortly before they are used in north India. It is thus possible
that the Mughals, descended from Timurid ancestors, did not directly import
the tradition of their heritage when they came to India but adopted Timurid
forms from the Deccan. There is, however, no real evidence for the movement
of artistic styles from south to north.

Immediate Mughal precedents: the Lodi and Sur traditions

After some hundred years, during which Delhi enjoyed little prestige, the
Afghan-descended Lodi dynasty (1451-1526) made vigorous efforts to revive
the city’s status. They vanquished their enemies, the Sharqis of Jaunpur, and
soon afterward commenced extensive building in Delhi itself. Certain motifs
on Lodi buildings are identical to those seen earlier only at Jaunpur. This is the
case, for example, with engaged colonettes embellished with an interwoven
pattern on the Bara Gumbad, almost certainly built as a ceremonial entrance to
the Bagh-i Jud, known today as Lodi Gardens, the burial grounds for the Lodi
rulers. This suggests that artists were taken to Delhi from Jaunpur, until then
considered the cultural center of Islamic India, in an attempt to revive the
prestige of the traditional capital. The revival of Delhi was accelerated under
the reigns of the first two Mughals, Babur and Humayun, who succeeded the
Lodis. Their architecture is the subject of the next chapter. Following their
reign, however, Mughal authority in India was briefly interrupted when the
Delhi throne was assumed in 1540 by the Afghan ruler, Sher Shah Sur and his
successors (1538-55). Although fifteen years of Mughal rule separated the
periods of Lodi and Sur authority, the architecture produced under these two
Afghan dynasties can be discussed simultaneously since it is close in form and
spirit.

Under the Lodis a new type of mosque developed, one that ultimately
became a major type in Mughal India. In lieu of the large congregational
mosque favored under earlier Sultanate dynasties, small single-aisled mosques
composed usually of three or five bays were constructed. Although it is not
fully understood how or why this type was developed, a Jami c mosque con-
structed by Sultan Sikandar Lodi and dated 1494, commonly known as the Bara
Gumbad mosque in Delhi’s Lodi Gardens (Plate 4), appears to be the first
example. Subsequent examples include the Moth-ki Masjid, built in Delhi
about 1510 by Sikandar Lodi’s prime minister, and the Jamali mosque, prob-
ably built shortly after the Mughal conquest of India but in this Lodi style. The
Jamali mosque was built adjacent to the house of Jamali (d. 1536), a poet and
saint favored by the Lodis as well as by the first Mughals, Humayun and Babur.
It represents a mature example of the small single-aisled type. The facades of
these mosques show one or more of the following features not seen on mosques
in Delhi since the Khalji era, yet important for the subsequent development of

1 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

Plate 4. Jami c mosque, Lodi Gardens, Delhi

much Mughal mosque architecture: inlaid colored stones (Jamali mosque),
calligraphy (Sikandar Lodi's Jami c mosque), and a high central portal (pishtaq )
on all these mosques, suggesting a renewed interest in the monumental appear-
ance of the facade.

Within the walls of Sher Shah Sur's citadel, known today as the Purana Qal c a
in Delhi, is a magnificent single-aisled mosque that was probably the Jami c
mosque of this Sur sultan (Plate 5). The citadel was commenced by the second
Mughal, Humayun, but was probably finished by Sher Shah (r. 1538-45), an
Afghan usurper, after he expelled the Mughals from Hindustan in 1540.
Although this mosque, today known as the Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque, is
attributed by some to Humayun, it follows forms and utilizes motifs seen on at
least one other building of Sher Shah, the tomb he erected for his grandfather
at Narnaul. Moreover, it shares little in common with any extant building of
Humayun. Its use of calligraphy and contrasting colored stones on the richly
textured exterior evokes the appearance of c Ala al-Din Khalji’s c Alai Darwaza.
Significantly, Sher Shah's government revived many of the administrative
features of c Ala al-Din's own government. Sher Shah associated these features
with the revival of the Delhi Sultanate’s prestige. Abu al-Fazl, Akbar’s official
chronicler, guardedly applauded these revived administrative features in spite
of Mughal contempt for this Afghan upstart. Not only is the overall appearance
of this mosque's facade important for the future development of Mughal
architecture, but also many details found there influence subsequent building.
On the mosque, many features are presented in an only slightly less sophisti-
cated manner than in Akbar's own architecture. They are here more developed
than on any prototype, thus in a sense serving as a bridge to subsequent Mughal
ornamentation.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Plate 5. Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque, Delhi

The single-aisled plan is used exclusively for Lodi- and Sur-period Jami c
mosques and for many lesser mosques in those periods as well. Still, simple
multi-aisled multi-bayed mosques, often trabeated and flat-roofed, continued
to be constructed across India. Examples include the Sangi mosque in Phulwari
Sharif, Bihar, dated 1 549-50, and the Chowk-ki Masjid, dated 1 5 5 3, in Nagaur,
Rajasthan. Trabeated, flat-roofed structures continue a long-standing Indian
tradition. They in no way represent a style that can be classified as non-
Islamic.

Before the Lodis, elaborate tombs were built only for kings, members of the
royal family and highly venerated saints. Although there were only three Lodi
kings, more than a hundred large tombs constructed under Lodi auspices
remain in Delhi alone, many times the number of tombs built under earlier
regimes. Since surely there were not a hundred saints worthy of elaborate
tombs during this brief period, the explanation appears to lie in the attitude
toward kingship under the Lodis. 5 The sultan under earlier Indo-Islamic
dynasties had been regarded as autocratic, a ruler whose power was absolute.
The Lodis, however, were a tribe from Afghanistan. Although they were long
settled in India, members of other Afghan tribes formed their support. These

Matsuo Ara, “The Lodhi Rulers and the Construction of Tomb-Buildings in Delhi,” Acta Asiatica,
43, 1982,71-80.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

tribal chiefs viewed a king not as an absolute but rather as a comrade who was
first among equals. In this same manner, these nobles felt that they, too, should
merit tombs, formerly a royal perquisite. Often the tombs of these nobles are
even larger than royal ones. Generally the royal tombs were octagonal, while
those of the nobles were square in plan. A typical square-plan tomb is that of
Mubarak Khan in Delhi’s South Extension, dated to 1481-82. Its facade is
marked with multiple tiers of arched niches and windows divided by rows of
string coursing, giving this single-storied structure the appearance of several
stories. Mubarak Khan’s tomb is surmounted by a single dome, and chattris
mark each corner of the roof. Square-plan tombs adhering to this general plan
were constructed by the Mughals as well, even into the eighteenth century.

For Sher Shah Sur the association of tomb construction with status assumed
even greater importance. The only Indian sultan descending from a low-
ranking heritage, Sher Shah wished to fabricate an elevated genealogy to
indicate that he had the requisite piety and high birth demanded of Islamic
sovereigns. Shortly after he assumed the Delhi throne in 1540, this sultan
constructed for his grandfather and father, each long-deceased and low-
ranking, enormous magnificent tombs that posthumously implied elevated
status. His grandfather’s tomb in Narnaul is of special interest, for not only is
it a square-plan tomb of the type that had been reserved for high-ranking Lodi
nobles, but also it is larger and more carefully crafted than Lodi prototypes.
This enormous tomb is exquisitely rendered with contrasting grey and red
stones on the facade. It serves as an immediate model for the finest Mughal-
period square-plan tombs. In Sasaram Sher Shah built for his father a huge
three-tiered octagonal mausoleum, a type generally reserved for royalty, yet
much larger than any Lodi prototype. Situated in the middle of a walled
compound with structures usually found in a saint’s shrine - a mosque, a
madrasa, a serai, a hall for religious meditation and step-well - this tomb
bestowed upon Sher Shah’s low-ranking father the trappings of both a saint and
a king.

The monumental octagonal mausoleum, completed in 1545, that Sher Shah
constructed for himself, also in Sasaram, was at that time the largest tomb ever
built in all India. Its setting, in the middle of an artificial lake, is a visual
allusion to the abundant waters of paradise described in the Quran. Specifically
this tank refers to the pool at which believers quench their thirst when entering
paradise, a reference made lucid by the presence of these particular Quranic
verses (108: 1-3) carved on the tomb’s interior. The tomb’s octagonal shape is
again an allusion to the eight levels that comprise the Islamic notion of paradise.
The eight-sided ambulatory around the tomb permits circumambulating the
deceased, an act of veneration in itself. The symbolism apparent in this tomb
anticipates that of Mughal tombs. Thus the roots of Mughal mausolea do not
lie exclusively outside of India.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SOURCES OF MUGHAL INSPIRATION

Non- Islamic sources: ijoo-ifoo

Although the Sultanate period is generally believed to be one of little tolerance
for non-Muslims, Hindu and Jain architecture continued to be built in north
India during this time. For example, at least three temples in Bihar are either
dated or datable to the Sultanate period. One of them, in the Hindu pilgrimage
city of Gaya, even bears an inscription praising the Muslim overlord, Firuz
Shah Tughluq, a ruler traditionally considered belligerently anti-Hindu. 6 Some
temples of this period are domed, as indicated by paintings illustrating a 1516
Aryanyakaparvan . 7 Thus domed architecture cannot be considered exclusive
to the Muslims.

Secular architecture erected at this time under Hindu patrons had a substan-
tial impact on subsequent secular buildings, notably those of the Mughals. One
example, a magnificent one, is the Man Mandir palace built in Gwalior about
1 500 by Raja Man Singh Tomar. Among the few buildings admired by Babur
in India, the palace is rightly regarded as having influenced Akbar in the design
of his own palaces. Situated atop the high flat plateau of the ancient Gwalior
fort, the palace’s exterior is marked with a series of circular buttresses each
surmounted by a high domed chattri , and the facade is embellished with tiles
glazed predominantly blue or yellow. While the Gwalior palace’s exterior
influenced the inlaid mosaic facade of the Delhi gate in Akbar’s Agra fort, the
interior of this palace had an even greater impact on Akbar’s architecture. The
main body of the palace consists of a series of small connecting courtyards
around whose perimeter are galleries containing rooms. These rooms are never
arcuated, but have essentially flat roofs, a type that reappears in Akbar’s Agra
and Fatehpur Sikri palaces. Like subsequent Mughal palaces, the Gwalior
palace makes use of animal brackets supporting the gallery eaves ( chajjas ),
probably ultimately modeled on torana motifs, that are used both as wall
ornamentation as well as functional devices. While Man Singh’s palace, not far
from Agra and Fatehpur Sikri, had an apparent impact on Akbari architecture,
it is wrong to consider the Gwalior palace uniquely Hindu in form. Rather, it
belongs to a type of domestic architecture that late in the Sultanate period was
utilized by both Hindus and non-Hindus.

The Iranian tradition

In spite of a long-standing Islamic heritage in India, Mughal rulers considered
themselves the rightful heirs of the Iranian Timurid tradition, which they felt

6 Alexander Cunningham (ed.), Archaeological Survey of India Reports , 23 vols. (Calcutta, 1871-87),
ill: 1 28-29. Hereafter this work is cited as ASIR.

7 Moti Chandra and Karl Khandalavala, An Illustrated Aranyaka Parvan in the Asiatic Society of
Bengal (Bombay, 1974), figs. 7, 23-24.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

was superior to Indo-Islamic culture. Important among Timurid artistic
traditions adopted by the Mughals are those that had been maintained and
further refined by a Timurid successor state, the Shaibanis of Bukhara. Their
rule was contemporary with the beginnings of a Mughal domination of India.
Thus, despite the fact that Safavid rule and artistic expression dominated most
of the Iranian world, the Shaibanis provided a conduit for the transmission of
Timurid architectural forms. 8

Mughal architecture adopted from Timurid antecedents possesses a sense of
grandeur and an extremely sophisticated realization of geometrical proportion.
Timurid architects had developed an understanding of how interconnecting
and stacked transverse arches could be used in lieu of solid walls to create new
spatial organizations. This resulted in structures with a large central room
surrounded by smaller chambers and arched entranceways of various sizes.
Such a plan is seen in the Timurid c Ishrat Khana, a dynastic mausoleum in
Samarqand; it was built for women of the Timurid house and finished around
1464. Frequently imperial Mughal tombs were designed on a similar plan,
specifically one consisting of nine bays. That is, a central chamber is sur-
rounded by eight smaller rooms whose placement, size and shape depended on
a geometric division of the whole. The Ak-serai tomb in Samarqand was of this
type, as were some garden pavilions known from written descriptions. Other
Timurid examples of this type include the khanqah of Qasim Shaikh in Kirman
dated 1 558-59 and the tomb of Uleg Beg Miranshah in Ghazni (d. 1 506). Since
the architect of Humayun’s tomb, the first Timurid-inspired tomb in Mughal
India, came from Bukhara, where he had designed a variety of building types,
the Timurid inspiration for this and later Mughal tombs is not surprising. In
mature phases of Timurid architecture, the surrounding chambers became
symbolic of the eight levels of paradise, a concept adopted for Mughal
mausolea as well.

The complex geometrical formulae used for Timurid building plans and the
arcuated systems of the walls allowed a proportionately large floor space to be
covered by a narrower superstructure. New vaulting systems consisting of
arch-nets in the squinches were created to cover angles formed by intersecting
arches. Stellate forms, frequently based on the structure’s geometrical pro-
portions, adorned interior domes and vaults. These are found first in Timurid
and then in Mughal architectural vaulting.

Following a long-standing Iranian tradition, the garden, symbolic of
paradise, was developed by the Timurids and subsequently by the Mughals.
Informally planted walled gardens with running streams, pools and often

8 Lisa Golombek, “From Tamerlane to the Taj Mahal,” in Abbas Daneshvari (ed.). Essays in Islamic
Art and Architecture in Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn (Malibu, 1981), 43-50, is the principal source
of information in this section.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

MUGHAL TASTE ANTICIPATED

pavilions were an inherent part of the large Timurid cities. Babur, the first
Mughal emperor, lists in his memoirs numerous gardens that delighted him in
Timurid Herat, a city whose splendid palaces and gardens went a long way in
influencing Babur’s own building schemes in India. These gardens were called
char bagh (literally: four gardens), although their actual layout is open to
dispute since none remains today. While some believe that this type of garden
was divided into four sections as at the Mughal tombs, others believe that the
term derives from the practice of planting in sets of four beds and that quarter-
ing a garden by waterways was a Mughal innovation.

The type of Jami c or large congregational mosque developed under the
imperial Mughals derives from large Timurid mosques. These are four -aiwan
structures in whose center is an open courtyard. The prayer chamber of these
mosques is entered through a large vaulted portal. The side wings are pillared
corridors. This type of Timurid mosque, for example the Bibi Khanum in
Samarqand (1398-1405), or the Kalan mosque (fifteenth-sixteenth century) in
Bukhara, adheres closely to earlier Seljuk models that had been the prototype
as well for the mosque (Plates 1 and 2) erected by the Ghorid rulers who had
conquered Delhi in the late twelfth century. This would explain why early
Mughal mosques ideally modeled on Timurid types often appear to resemble
in plan many earlier Sultanate mosques of India.

MUGHAL TASTE ANTICIPATED

The heritage bequeathed to the new Mughal rulers and their subjects was a rich
and varied one. It included Iranian, indigenous Indian and eventually even
European forms and symbolism. Attitudes toward this heritage during the
subsequent 300 years, on both an imperial and a sub-imperial level, will
formulate a Mughal aesthetic and create a unique cultural expression.

Mughal architectural taste and idiom evolves from the center outwards. It is
triggered by imperial predilection, rarely arbitrary but embedded in political
and cultural ideology. The ruler is not often solely responsible for construction
outside central urban areas; rather, it is the nobility, usually high-ranking,
wealthy and sophisticated, that are responsible for building there. They built,
often prolifically, on their landholdings that were granted in lieu of salary, even
though these lands were shifted about every two years to prevent the estab-
lishment of threatening power bases. Such construction, almost always rooted
in a current Mughal idiom but often reflecting local taste as well, was essentially
a way to curry favor with the emperor and to buy power and success. In return,
the mosques, temples, palaces, gardens and other works erected served as
symbols of Mughal presence and authority. Even during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, when the capital, Delhi, increasingly became both the
heart and perimeter of the Mughal empire, imperial Mughal architectural

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

aesthetic and taste served as the model for construction in developing splinter
states. Mughal style eventually came to represent not Mughal authority, but the
cultural and social values established under the Mughals. These values were
cherished by Muslim subjects living increasingly under western colonial rule.
How, why and where this transpired is the story of the next five chapters.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 2

THE BEGINNINGS OF
MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

BABUR

Babur before his conquest of India

Born in what is today the southern Soviet province of Uzbekistan, the
Timurid Babur inherited the throne of a small principality known as Ferghana
in 1494. He was then eleven years old. By the time he was twenty-one, he twice
had held neighboring Samarqand, albeit briefly. For two years after his second
loss of Samarqand, Babur, homeless and supported only by a tiny band of loyal
followers, sought a principality. In 1504 his luck improved, and he captured
Kabul and surrounding territories. In 1511, Babur tried for a third time to
extend his rule to Samarqand, this time with support from the Safavid king
Shah Isma c il. The Safavid extended his support only because Babur, a Sunni,
had agreed to adopt trappings of the Shia creed, a heretical notion to the
orthodox Sunni Muslims of Samarqand. Babur was able to enter the city and
establish himself as its ruler. But within less than a year, the Sunni subjects of
Samarqand withdrew support from Babur. After unsuccessful attempts to gain
Bukhara, Babur returned to Kabul in 1512, once again holding only this
province, nothing more.

While Babur’s tenure in Samarqand had been short, the city’s impact upon
him was profound, shaping his attitude toward architecture and, even more
significantly, toward landscape. Samarqand, embellished by Timur and his
immediate successors with splendid char bagh gardens, mosques, madrasas and
tombs, was one of the wonders of the fifteenth century. Babur was also deeply
impressed by Herat, the seat of most cultured Timurid princes, which he had
visited in 1507. Its many gardens and magnificent buildings are recorded in
tourist-like fashion in his memoirs. These memoirs are not only intimate
observations of his own exploits and travels, but also carefully observed
descriptions of nature, be it human or the flora and fauna which abounded in
his native Central Asia as well as in India. It thus comes as no surprise that
among Babur’s first enterprises in the province of Kabul was the layout of
terraced, planted gardens with running streams. These doubtless were inspired
by the gardens of Samarqand and Herat and reflected Babur’s deep love of
nature.

A true Timurid in spirit, Babur preferred to camp in gardens than reside in

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

any permanently constructed palace. Throughout his small principality, he
either refurbished already existing gardens or created new ones. However, the
creation of such gardens was not simply an indulgence in a personal pleasure or
a whimsical pastime. They were used as camp sites, situated at a day’s or half-
day’s horse ride from one another in the manner that other rulers built serais.
The fruit of the gardens was consumed by Babur and his men, for frequently
he refers to bananas, oranges or pomegranates eaten by his followers or given
as special gifts. But such gardens probably had a greater significance. That is,
the manipulation of natural untamed landscape into a rational, ordered creation
was for Babur a metaphor for his ability to govern. Underscoring this is the
allusion by Babur’s faithful noble, Zain Khan, to “the garden of his [Babur’s]
powerful state,” using other garden and floral imagery to proclaim Babur’s
regal character. 1

The locations of many of these gardens, such as the ones at Nimla or Istalif,
are known from Babur’s writings as well as those of Zain Khan. They indicate
the types of trees, flowers and fruit that grew in these terraced settings.
Natural springs were formalized with stone edgings, streams were diverted
through man-made watercourses and pavilions were constructed for the joy of
the beholder. Of all Babur’s gardens in Kabul province, the Bagh-i Wafa, or
Garden of Fidelity, must have been his favorite, for he writes about it most
frequently. Located near Jalalabad in modern Afghanistan, this garden lay close
to the Khyber Pass, the only break in the mountain barrier between Kabul and
Hindustan. Babur halted at the Bagh-i Wafa at various times over the next
fifteen years. It was divided into four parts by running streams and planted
with oranges, limes, pomegranates, bananas, sugar cane, jasmine, tulips and
hyacinths, among other plants. Today none of these Afghan gardens exists in
its original state, and even the location of many of them remains in doubt.

Babur's conquest of India

Babur had long contemplated a conquest of India. As early as 1 505 he made an
initial foray as far as the Indus River, but until 1 5 14 he largely aspired to retake
his Central Asian territories. With this dream effectively quashed, Babur’s
thoughts turned again toward India. He then engaged a Turkish artillery-man
and fortified his army with guns, weapons his Indian opponents lacked. He
secured Qandahar, necessary in order to protect Kabul during long absences,
and invaded India five times. Using innovative military tactics learned from
Ustad c Ali, his current head artillery-man, Babur’s army defeated Sultan
Ibrahim Lodi’s more numerous foot and cavalry forces. Babur killed the Indian

Zain Khan Khwafi, Tabaqat-i Baburi , tr. S. Hasan Askari (Delhi, 1982), p. 7. Hereafter cited as Zain
Khan.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BABUR

sultan himself at the battle of Panipat in April, 1526. Declaring himself emperor
of Hindustan, Babur established Agra as his capital. His first and most serious
opponent was a Rajput Hindu, Rana Sangam of Mewar, leader of a largely
Hindu-Rajput confederacy. A renowned warrior, Rana Sangam had also
aspired to replace the Lodi sultans. His troops were defeated by Babur in
March 1527 in close proximity to Fatehpur Sikri, a victory commemorated by
the construction of large stepped wells. For the next several years until his
premature death in 1530, Babur’s career was devoted to conquering northern
and eastern India. When he died, Babur bequeathed to his oldest son,
Humayun, a shaky and as yet unconsolidated empire that extended from
Afghanistan into Bihar.

Babur's Indian gardens

Even before the battle of Panipat, Babur considered the Punjab, that is, the
north-western territory between Delhi and Kabul, rightfully his since earlier it
had been conquered by his ancestor, Timur. There, on a bitter cold, rainy day
in February 1526, two months before his victory over the Lodis, Babur
discovered a site near the Ghaggar river that he deemed ideal for a char bagh 2
The garden, which he designed himself, was finished in 1528-29. Although it
no longer survives, literary reports indicate that Babur’s first Indian garden was
built around a natural spring and that the garden itself was situated in a narrow
mountain valley, a terrain close to that of Babur’s own Kabul.

However, after his victory at Panipat in the hot summer month of April
1526, the morale of Babur’s troops declined markedly. While Babur himself
detested the heat, dust, flies and violent winds of the Indian summers, he was
determined to stay, rallying the support of his followers. He responded to the
climate by building gardens and baths. Gardens, ordered and regular, could
shape the terrain to Babur’s own liking and expectations. Running water
required for all Mughal gardens was supplied by constructing Persian water
wheels, in conjunction with deep stepped wells called baolis. Baths piped with
hot and cold water were built in these gardens, for, as Babur states, inside such
baths the heat and flying dust are shut out. 3 In Agra no suitable land for a
garden existed, but Babur nevertheless laid out a char bagh that he named
Hasht Behisht, the four-quartered Garden of Eight Paradises. It was situated
on the east bank of the Jumna river. Although not stated explicitly, Babur’s
memoirs suggest that it served as his main residence and court, for it included
baths, a large tank, an audience hall and private dwellings.

2 Zain Khan, pp. 66-68, and Zahir al-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah, Babur Nama , tr. A. S. Beveridge
(reprint ed., New Delhi, 1970), pp. 464-65. Hereafter cited as Babur.

3 Babur, pp. 531-32, and Zain Khan, p. 161.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

A second garden was constructed just inside the city’s old fort. 4 By the end
of 1526 this garden, its well, several stone structures and a mosque were
completed. Babur disliked the mosque, for it was designed “in the Hindustani
fashion,” but the well pleased him, and he dedicated its completion to his vic-
tory over the Rana Sangam. 5 Some have associated this well with an extant baoli
in the Agra fort, but that is probably a later project.

A second baoli y an octagonal one, is located at the base of the Fatehpur Sikri
rock scarp about a kilometer from the Hiran Minar (Plate 27) constructed by
Akbar later in the century. This was probably the original site of a well-known
epigraph commemorating Babur’s Fatehpur Sikri victory. A deep flight of
stairs leads to the octagonal well; pillared and arched passageways mark each
level of its shaft. These red sandstone corridors, which remain cool during
the hot season, are embellished with rosettes, simply carved brackets and
chandrashalas (elaborate niche-like forms) on pillar bases typically found
during this period. While some writers confuse this baoli with the one Babur’s
memoirs describe in the Agra fort garden, 6 he probably constructed a baoli in
each place, recording only one in his memoirs.

Agra, Babur’s capital, figures large in his memoirs, but he much loved
Fatehpur Sikri, which he named Shukri, or Thanks, for its large lake with water
much needed by Mughal troops. Following his defeat of the rana on the out-
skirts of Fatehpur Sikri, Babur constructed a garden there called the Garden of
Victory. 7 In it he built an octagonal pavilion which he used for relaxation and
writing. In the center of a nearby lake he built a large platform. 8

Only two of Babur’s Indian gardens can be identified with any certainty.
One is in Agra, today called the Ram Bagh. Although its original name is open
to some dispute, it was probably the Gul Afshan garden, which served as
Babur’s burial site until his body was transferred to a garden in Kabul in
accordance with his final wishes. A water-course with pools symmetrically
dividing the terraced garden is still evident, although it belongs to Jahangir’s
reign (1605-27), when the garden underwent extensive renovations.

The second of Babur’s gardens that can be identified is at Dholpur, today in
Bharatpur District, Rajasthan. It is his Bagh-i Nilufar, or Lotus garden,
described in his memoirs. Located atop the red sandstone ridge that looms high
above the Chambal river, the Lotus garden is situated some 50 km south of
Agra. The site, like all the settings for his gardens, was chosen by Babur
personally, spotted when the emperor was examining a Lodi-period reservoir.

4 Zain Khan, p. 1 5 6.

5 Babur, p. 533.

6 M. Ashraf Husain, “Inscriptions of the Emperor Babur,” Epigraphia Indica: Arabic and Persian
Supplement 1965, 50-51. Hereafter cited as El APS.

7 Babur, pp. 581, 584.

8 Gulbadan Begam, Humayun Nama , tr. A. S. Beveridge (London, 1902), pp. 102-03.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BABUR

Plate 6. Pool, Bagh-i Nilufar (Lotus garden), Dholpur

Babur describes the process of building the garden in some detail and refers to
a mosque, bath, well, twenty-six rock spouts, pillars, watercourses cut terrace-
like into the terrain, and stone platforms. The bath, well and water channels are
still extant, although little remains of the garden’s original character; however,
a centrally situated large lotus-shaped pool (Plate 6 ) as well as smaller pools,
some with edging resembling lotus petals, are still visible. Lotus-shaped pools
and tanks had been used earlier in India, for example in the Sultanate of Mandu,
but the notion of terraced symmetrical gardens divided into four quarters by
courses of running water was introduced into India by Babur.

No traces of the original planting remain, but the placement and choice of
plants at the Lotus garden, as at all Babur’s gardens, were probably by the
emperor. For example, melons brought from Kabul were grown successfully in
Agra, grapes were introduced into India, trees were grafted and flowers
especially cultivated for their color. His memoirs reveal a deep personal
involvement with the cultivation of plants and flowers for his own gardens,
and one section is devoted solely to a discussion of the fruits and trees of
Hindustan. In short, Babur knew all potential plantings for his garden, and he
demonstrated himself ultimate master and creator of each garden. Recalling
that Zain Khan uses the garden metaphor for Babur’s state, Babur’s portrayal
of himself as its master assumes special significance.

Babur issued orders that regular, symmetrical gardens and orchards were to

2 3

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

be laid out in all large cities. 9 A garden constructed in conjunction with a
mosque was completed in Panipat upon imperial order. 10 In Gwalior, Rahim
Dad, superintendent of Gwalior fort, constructed his own garden. 11 It no
longer remains, although a madrasa constructed in a local style adjacent to the
garden does. Doubtless other gardens not mentioned in the memoirs were built
as well. This introduction of a new aesthetic and ordering of the land, a land
that Babur refers to as “disorderly Hind,” 12 should be construed as concrete
evidence of the Mughals’ Timurid heritage. That these four-part, ordered
gardens represented a Timurid tradition, even in the eyes of Babur’s Indian
subjects, may be surmised from their names. The area in Agra developed under
Babur’s nobles, Zain Khan, Yunus c Ali and Khalifa, was called Kabul by local
inhabitants; 13 and today the area in Panipat where Babur’s garden originally
stood is still called Kabuli Bagh.

The quest for a Mughal style

Babur’s memoirs indicate that the construction of permanent buildings
assumed less importance for him than the construction of gardens. Just as he
camped in gardens in Kabul when moving from site to site, so too in India the
garden served as his camp. Moreover, his precarious financial situation - where
the payment of troops had to be his first priority - left fewer resources for large
stone monuments. Nevertheless, buildings were constructed, enough to
employ almost 1,500 stone cutters at work on projects throughout his north
Indian domain. 14

Babur’s view of indigenous Indian architecture is only partially reflected in
his comment about a mosque within his Agra fort garden. He considered the
building unattractively constructed in the “Hindustani fashion.” 15 While his
objections are vague, Zain Khan elaborates that the foundations as well as the
walls of this Agra mosque were strong, constructed of brick and stone, but the
“composition was not conformable,” 16 that is, not harmonious, referring to the
spatial organization, doubtless much less sophisticated than that of Timurid
prototypes. But Babur did not dislike all Indian architecture, for he describes
favorably at some length the palaces of the Gwalior fort, praising especially
those of Man Singh Tomar discussed in the previous chapter. Its special appeal
lay in the carved stone walls, tiled facades and exterior chattris. 17 Just as Timur
had admired Indian stone masons and some 225 years earlier had carried some
back to work on his own buildings in Samarqand, so Babur - who had noted
this in his memoirs - also favored the work of these artisans and employed

9 Zain Khan, p. 1 56.

12 Babur, p. 532.

15 Babur, p. 533.

'o EIAPS , 53-56.

13 Babur, p. 532.

16 Zain Khan, p. 162.

11 Babur, p. 610.

14 Babur, p. 520.

17 Babur, pp. 608-09.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BABUR

them freely. 18 Still today the hand of Indian masons is evident on the tanks at
the Dholpur Lotus garden. These masons had been rewarded with gifts by
Babur, who admired their craft. 19 He was astonished at the ability of Indian
masons to inlay and bond pieces of colored stone without the use of mortar. 20

In spite of his admiration for Indian craftsmen, Babur was concerned that the
overall design of his structures in India should be modeled on Khurasani, that
is, Timurid examples. 21 Such models, for example, were probably followed in
the design of one structure in the Agra Hasht Behisht garden. Although it is
only known from textual description, it appears to have had a larg epishtaq on
each of four sides, connecting galleries and four small interior chambers. 22
Possibly to insure fidelity to Timurid models, two artisans from Central Asia
came to work for Babur in India. One was Mir Mirak Ghiyas, identified as a
stone cutter in Babur’s memoirs, possibly identical with Mirak Sayyid Ghiyas,
the designer of Humayun’s tomb, who came from Herat and owned much land
in Khurasan. 23 A second stone cutter, Ustad Shah Muhammad, first had served
Babur in Qandahar before his incursions into India and continued in his
employ until at least 1529, the year before Babur’s death. 24 These men doubt-
less enjoyed a status far higher than that of ordinary craftsmen, for routine
workers would not have been identified by name.

Among the buildings of Babur’s time that survive are one imperially
patronized mosque and two others constructed by nobles on Babur’s orders.
These were all built in the final years of his reign. This is notable, for until
Babur’s conquest of India there is no evidence for his patronage of religious
structures. 25

The mosque that Babur himself provided is in Panipat, today in Karnal
District of Haryana State (Plates 7-8). Inscriptions indicate that the mosque
was well under way, if not finished, by the end of 1527, and its gate, well and
garden were finished by 1528. The mosque is not mentioned in literary sources;
Babur’s memoirs contain lacunae for this period, and Zain Khan’s work ends
abruptly with the events of early 1527. Nevertheless, we can certainly assume
that the complex commemorates Babur’s decisive victory over Sultan Ibrahim
Lodi at Panipat and thus the Mughal conquest of Hindustan.

Since the garden has disappeared, the mosque’s location within it is not
known. However, the building’s large size suggests that it, rather than the
garden, dominated the complex. The rectangular prayer chamber, measuring

18 Babur, pp. 77, 520. 19 Babur, p. 634.

20 Zain Khan, p. 157. 21 Zain Khan, p. 160. 22 Zain Khan, p. 157.

23 Babur, p. 642. Baha al-Din Hasan Nisari Bukhari, Mudhakkir-i Ahbab (New Delhi, 1 969), pp. 37,
103, 283-86, discusses the architect and landscape designer Mirak Sayyid Ghiyas (also known as
Mirak Mirza Ghiyas).

24 Babur, pp. 343, 642.

25 Howard Crane, “The Patronage of Zahir al-Din Babur and the Origins of Mughal Architecture,”
Bulletin of the Asia Institute , 1, 1987, 96-97.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

Plate 7. Babur’s mosque, today known as Kabuli Bagh mosque, Panipat

53.75 by 16.50 meters, is dominated by a large central domed bay flanked on
either side by three-bayed triple-aisled side wings. Each bay of the side wings
is entered by an arched opening supported on massive piers. Over the mosque’s
brick construction is a heavy stucco veneer, reminiscent of that covering much
Sultanate architecture. The northwest and southwest corners of the mosque
were marked by octagonal towers crowned by domed pavilions, although only
one survives. Each of the mosque’s bays is surmounted by a dome, those over
the westernmost aisle being smaller than those on the east.

The large central bay’s qibla wall, the one oriented toward Mecca, is stone-
faced, but elsewhere the veneer on the mosque’s interior is stucco over a brick
core. This central bay is the mosque’s focal point, visible even from the outside

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BABUR

Plate 8. Babur’s mosque, Panipat

through the wide entrance. Attention is drawn to the mihrab by an epigraph -
including the Throne Verse from the Quran, and an historical inscription dated
1527-28 - rendered dramatically in black stone against white marble. While the
chamber itself is a simple domed structure, recalling the Lodi Bara Gumbad
built in Delhi’s Lodi Gardens in 1494, the appearance of net pendentives here
used only decoratively, evokes a Timurid flavor. Each side wing is divided into
two aisles by massive brick piers; the resulting bays are crowned by domes
resting on brick pendentives that are covered by a thick stucco veneer modeled
to resemble net squinches, introduced to north India by the Mughals.

A stone gate stands in the courtyard’s north wall. It is carved in the tradition
of earlier Lodi gates, for example that at the Lodi-period tomb of Khwaja Khizr
dated 1522-24 in nearby Sonepat. Most of the enclosure wall has disappeared,
but remains suggest that the entire courtyard was walled and that each side had
similar gates.

The Panipat mosque’s prayer chamber appears to have been loosely modeled
on the type of congregational mosque used by the Timurids. It also incor-
porates features of mosques built by the pre-Lodi sultans in this region. This
mosque type, however, was favored by Babur not because of any earlier Indian
associations, but for two rather different reasons. First, it is decidedly different
from the single-aisled multi-bayed type used exclusively by Babur’s immediate
predecessors, the Afghan Lodis. Notably at Panipat, the site of this mosque,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

Babur had defeated the Lodis. Second, it is a type that, although somewhat
transformed in the process of Indian translation, had been constructed by
Timur, for example in his Bibi Khanum mosque in Samarqand. As the Mughal
Babur was the only surviving Timurid ruler, it must have been especially
important for him to preserve at least a vestige of Timurid architectural forms.

A vestige it is, no more, surprising in light of Babur’s admiration for the
architecture of the great Central Asian Timurid cities Samarqand and Herat.
Despite his regard for Timurid architecture, it could not be replicated on Indian
soil. It appears that there were only a few artists trained in the Timurid home-
land and probably no architect capable of introducing the complex Timurid
engineering principles. Moreover, Babur lacked the wealth needed for such
construction. 26 Instead, local architects and artisans relied closely on older but
familiar Indian techniques.

Two other mosques remain that were constructed by leading nobles follow-
ing Babur’s orders. Probably these orders were general ones, not commands to
erect specific mosques. One of these mosques is at Sambhal (Plate 9), about
1 40 km east of Delhi. It was constructed in 1 5 26 by Mir Hindu Beg, an import-
ant noble in the court of both Babur and Humayun. Built a year before Babur’s
Kabuli Bagh mosque in Panipat, the Sambhal mosque is the first extant Mughal
building in India. The complex is entered through a gate on the east that opens
to a large walled courtyard. The prayer chamber, like the one of the Panipat
mosque, is rectangular with a large square central bay. Its entrance is set into a
high pishtaq , recalling those of Sharqi mosques at Jaunpur. The chamber is
flanked on either side by three-bayed double-aisled side wings. A single dome
surmounts the central bay, and a small flatish dome surmounts each bay of the
side wings. The mosque’s pishtaq and other features resembling fifteenth-
century Sharqi structures in nearby Jaunpur suggest a reliance on local artisans
and designers.

Even though the Sambhal mosque was renovated at least twice in the seven-
teenth century, enough of its original state remains to show that the plan and
general appearance anticipate Babur’s Panipat mosque commenced the follow-
ing year. 27 The size (40.5 by 12.4 meters), too, anticipates the scale of Babur’s
imperial mosque, thus making this mosque at Sambhal the largest one con-
structed in the Delhi region since Timur’s sack of that city in 1398. This
mosque is situated high on a hill and dominates the city for a considerable
distance. According to Hindu lore that was known to the Mughals, the tenth

and last incarnation of Vishnu will appear in Sambhal at the end of this era

26 Crane, “Zahir al-Din Babur,” io 6.

27 Annual Report on Indian Epigraphy , 1952-53, pp. 97-98. Hereafter cited as ARIE.

28 Abu al-Fazl, A’in-i Akbari , 3 vols., Vol. 1 tr. H. Blochmann, Vols. n and 111 tr. H. S. Jarrett (reprint
eds., Delhi and New Delhi, 1965-78), 11: 285. Hereafter cited as Ain.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BABUR

Plate 9. Mir Hindu Beg’s mosque, Sambhal

A second mosque (Plate 10) probably built in response to Babur’s general
orders, not a specific command, stands at Ayodhya, today in Faizabad District,
on the banks of the Ghaghara river. Three inscriptions indicate it was con-
structed by Mir Baqi, a noble, in 1528-29, that is, after the mosques at Sambhal
and Panipat. Unlike the other mosques built under Babur’s auspices, this one
at Ayodhya is a single-aisled three-bayed type. It is also considerably smaller
than the other two. The central bay’s pishtaq is much higher than the flanking
side bays, but all three bays contain arched entrances. Most of the mosque is
stucco-covered, over a rubble or brick core, but carved black stone columns
from a pre-twelfth-century temple are embedded into either side of the central
entrance porch. The mosque is surmounted by three prominent domes.

The site today is highly charged. Many claim the mosque, situated on a
hillock, replaces a temple which Babur had destroyed. Today this mound
popularly is considered the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. An important
Mughal chronicler, writing about seventy years after the mosque’s construc-
tion, acknowledges Ayodhya’s sanctity as Rama’s dwelling, 29 but says nothing
about the exact site of Rama’s birth. It is thus difficult to disentangle recent
popular passion from historical accuracy.

All the same, Ayodhya was a site of great importance to Babur’s Hindu

29 Ain , 11: 189.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

subjects in the Mughal period. The incorporation of older Hindu architectural
members prominently displayed on the mosque’s facade, at a period when the
reuse of Hindu material was highly unusual, suggests the patron, Mir Baqi, was
attempting to make a general statement of Muslim superiority. 30 This mosque,
then, like the others of Babur’s time, appears to be located in an area that had a
charged significance. Babur’s own mosque in Panipat was built on the site of
Lodi defeat and Mughal victory, while the other two sites were both associated,
however loosely, with ancient Hindu tradition.

Babur’s choice of Panipat for a mosque is not difficult to understand.
However, the construction of mosques on sites associated with non-Islamic
tradition is less comprehensible for a ruler who claimed his right to sovereignty
based on his Timurid heritage and Turkishness, not on religious grounds. 31
While such rhetoric predominated in his pre-India conquest, once he estab-
lished himself permanently in India, Babur added the establishment of Islam as
a mission of his rule. He referred to Hindus as kafirs , that is, pagans or infidels,
and war against his greatest Indian threat, Rana Sangam, was termed jihad or
holy war. 32 Shortly after his victory over Rana Sangam, Babur assumed the title
Ghazi, that is, a warrior dedicated to the cause of Islam, and wrote a verse
stating his resolve to defeat Hindus and pagans. 33 All this rhetoric followed the
long-established practice of Islamic rulers conquering non-Islamic lands. The
placement of the Ayodhya and Sambhal mosques by his nobles in generally
charged locales was well in keeping with the spirit of Babur’s new legitimizing
rhetoric.

Babur ruled Hindustan for less than five years before his death in December,
1530. Although he ruled for only a short time, he introduced Timurid archi-
tectural concepts and, most importantly, the rationally organized four-part
paradise garden. This latter in particular was to become a Mughal trademark.

HUMAYUN

Humayun’s reign

In 1 530 Humayun, designated by Babur as his successor, acceded to the throne.
Humayun was sensitive, kind and intelligent, but lacked long-term wisdom
and a mature understanding of statecraft. He had proven himself capable in
warfare; however, he was inclined to lose the fruits of his victory by abandon-
ing himself to long periods of pleasure and celebration. For example, after
victories in Gujarat, Mandu and Gaur, Humayun remained in the palaces of the

30 The pillars appear to bear Shivite, not Vishnuite, iconography. This suggests strongly that the pillars
were not spolia from a temple dedicated to the Hindu deity Rama.

31 Crane, “Zahir al-Din Babur,” 107. 32 Babur, pp. 481, 5 1 8, 484, 569-74, 577. 33 Babur, pp. 574-75.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

HUMAYUN

Plate io. Mir Baqi’s mosque, today known as the Baburi mosque, Ayodhya

defeated for extended periods. Meanwhile the Mughal opponents’ strength
increased, giving them time to plot Humayun’s downfall. The most serious of
these adversaries was the Afghan, Sher Shah Sur, based in eastern India.

Humayun underestimated Sher Shah’s potential and occupied himself with
lesser rivals in western India. In 1536, Humayun, alarmed by reports of Sher
Shah’s activities, headed toward Bihar and Bengal, where he captured Gaur, the
Bengal capital. Apparently unaware that Sher Shah had proclaimed himself
sultan, Humayun spent the next nine months in pursuit of pleasure in Gaur,
even renaming the city Jannatabad, or Abode of Paradise. This led to his defeat
in 1538 in a decisive battle with Sher Shah at Chausa, in Bihar. The Mughal
emperor managed to escape across the swollen Ganges river, although most of
his retinue drowned in its waters. He was then forsaken by his brothers, each
of whom sought the Mughal crown for himself. As a result of this division,
Humayun was again defeated by Sher Shah, this time at Kanauj in 1540. Sher
Shah then assumed the throne of Delhi and drove Humayun from Hindustan.
Homeless, Humayun and his wife, Hamida, were pursued through Rajasthan,
where their first son, Akbar, was born in 1542. Reaching Kabul in 1543, they
left the prince Akbar there in the charge of one of Humayun’s brothers.
Although Humayun himself was not safe from his brothers’ treachery,
Timurid custom protected the young child.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

By 1544, Humayun reached Iran and found refuge in the Safavid court of
Shah Tahmasp. The relationship between the deposed Mughal and this Safavid
ruler was not a comfortable one, since Shah Tahmasp insisted that Humayun
embrace Shiism just as Babur had been forced to do some years earlier.
Nevertheless, Shah Tahmasp’s support eventually enabled Humayun to regain
the Mughal throne in 1555. These years in Iran introduced Humayun not only
to Safavid painters and painting but also to the architecture of Herat and
Samarqand and to the Timurid-Safavid Iranian traditions that Babur had so
admired.

Humayun y s patronage

With the exception of a single inscribed mosque in Agra, no other surviving
structure indisputably results from Humayun’s patronage. Some hold that the
Delhi Purana Qal c a, its mosque and octagonal pavilion (Plate 11) also are his.
Despite the dearth of remaining buildings from Humayun’s time, contem-
porary sources refer to his architectural output. They describe, for example, his
unique conceptions, although they are based on Timurid design concepts. One
of them was a floating palace formed from four barges each bearing an inward
facing arch and attached in such a manner that an octagonal pool formed the
central portion. In addition, he designed three-storied collapsible palaces,
gilded and domed.

More traditional palaces were constructed at Gwalior, Agra and Delhi.
Neither the Gwalior palace, constructed of chiselled stones, nor the multi-
storied Agra palace, with its octagonal tank, connected via subterranean
passages to other parts of the palaces, survives.

Much controversy centers around Humayun’s role in erecting the fortified
enclosure today known as Delhi’s Purana Qal c a. Humayun commenced a
walled city and imperial palace on this site in 1533. The city, named Din-Panah
or Refuge of Religion, was auspiciously situated upon the age-old site known
as Indraprastha, long associated with the traditional Hindu epic Mahabharata.
The city was also located in very close proximity to the shrine of Delhi’s
most revered saint, Nizam al-Din Auliya. The choice of the site must have
been made with its history in mind, for Humayun, superstitious yet
religious, sought advice from learned men as well as astrologers. Even after
Humayun’s victorious return to India in 1555, this site remained symbolic for
the Mughals, for, as we shall see, Humayun’s tomb was constructed in this
same area.

Khwand Amir, a noble in Humayun’s court, reports that by 1534 the “walls,
bastions, ramparts and gates” of Humayun’s Din-Panah were nearly com-
pleted, adding that it was hoped that the “great and lofty buildings” of the city

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

HUMAYUN

Plate ii. Sher Mandal, Delhi

soon would be finished. 34 It is difficult to tell from Khwand Amir’s bombastic
prose exactly how much of the city in reality was ready by 1534; moreover, it
is impossible to judge how much was completed before Sher Shah’s accession
to the Delhi throne in 1 540, for Humayun was constantly engaged in defend-
ing the Mughal domain and struggling to maintain his crown. Sher Shah
probably completed the fort and constructed its interior Qal c a-i Kuhna
mosque discussed in the previous chapter. Humayun almost certainly built the
fort’s small octagonal pavilion, known as the Sher Mandal (Plate 11) and
traditionally associated with the library upon whose steps Humayun fatally fell
in 1556, less than a year after his successful return to India. Abu al-Fazl, the
official chronicler of Humayun’s son and successor, Akbar, writes that the
building in which Humayun had his fatal accident had only recently been
completed, 35 presumably by Humayun. The pavilion’s design, close to Timurid
garden pavilions and unlike Sultanate architectural types, suggests Mughal

34 Muhammad Khwand Amir, Qanun-i Humayuni , tr. Baini Prasad (Calcutta, 1940), pp. 59-60.

35 Abu al-Fazl, Akbar Nama , 3 vols., tr. H. Beveridge (reprint ed., Delhi, 1972-73), 1: 656. Hereafter
cited as Akbar Nama.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

patronage. So does the appearance of the net pendentives in the structure’s
vaulting.

The sole inscribed monument belonging to Humayun’s patronage is a
mosque in Agra known after the name of its locality, Kachpura (Plate 12). Two
inscriptions indicate that the mosque was completed in 1530, the year of
Humayun’s accession to the throne. Its location, across the Jumna from the
land on which the Taj Mahal was later built, may have been the site of the Hasht
Behisht garden, or Garden of Eight Paradises, used for Babur’s court. This
garden also most likely continued to serve as Humayun’s court until he
constructed his Delhi citadel. 36 Like Babur’s mosques, this one in Kachpura is
mentioned in no text. It resembles Babur’s Panipat mosque (Plates 7 and 8) in
general plan and appearance, although the central pishtaq is much higher and
the central vaulted chamber achieves a greater sense of open space than did the
only slightly earlier Mughal mosques. The open character of the central bay
with low flanking bays recalls earlier Timurid mosques, for example the Jami c
mosque at Nishapur. As at Babur’s Panipat mosque, stucco covers a brick core.
On Humayun’s mosque, eight-pointed stars and lozenge patterns are
imprinted into the rectangular facade; possibly these were once painted to
emphasize the design, evoking the brightly colored glazed tile ornamentation
of Herat and Samarqand. The mosque today is ruined, so it is unclear how
many bays originally composed the double-aisled side wings. The interior
central bay is surmounted by a dome supported on kite-shaped pedentives and
net squinches. The smaller domes of the resulting side wings are similarly
supported. While no traces of enclosure walls and entrance gates remain, they
were almost certainly part of the original plan. The overall appearance and plan
of this structure suggests that it, like Babur’s Panipat mosque, was intended to
emulate older Timurid types.

NON-IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE UNDER BABUR AND

HUMAYUN

Architecture erected in the Delhi region by those close to Babur and Humayun
appears little influenced by Timurid concepts; rather, what remains reflects the
older Lodi style. The most significant examples are at the shrine ( dargah )
around the tomb of Nizam al-Din Auliya. Belonging to the Chishti order,
Nizam al-Din is Delhi’s most esteemed Muslim saint. This shrine gained
renewed significance in the Mughal period. In it is the tomb of Amir Khusrau
(d. 1325), considered the greatest Persian poet of Hindustan. This tomb was
restored by Babur’s brother-in-law, who provided an inscribed marble slab
next to an open-air grave. In Humayun’s reign, in 1531-32, a red sandstone

36 ASIR , iv: 101-02.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

NON-IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE

Plate 12. HumayurTs mosque, also known as the Kachpura mosque, Agra

screened enclosure (Plate 13) was built around the grave. 37 This screen, carved
with geometric and floral patterns, recalls Lodi-period tombs, for example that
of Yusuf Qattal, also in Delhi.

Other monuments of this time include the mosque of Ghazanfar, con-
structed in 1528-29 during Babur’s reign near the Delhi airport in Palam. In
another part of Delhi, Malvianagar, a residential center for spiritual study
(i khanqah ) was built in 1534-35 to honor Shaikh Farid al-Din Ganj-i Shakar, a
long deceased saint. That makes it contemporary with Humayun’s Din-Panah,
although it reveals no awareness of new imperial forms. Both the mosque and
khanqah are squat single-aisled three-bayed structures notable for neither their
proportions nor ornamentation.

Inscriptions indicate that mosques, tombs and other structures continued to
be erected by men of all ranks and classes outside of Delhi during the early
Mughal period. However, few of these remain in their original state. Like sub-
imperial monuments in the Delhi area, they reveal little or no Timurid
influence. For example, the tomb of Tardi Kochak in Hisar, dated 1537-38 by

37 Zafar Hasan, A Guide to Nizamu-d Din , Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. io
(Calcutta, 192 2), pp. 22-25.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

Plate 13. Mihrab on screen around Amir Khusrau’s tomb, Delhi

a stucco inscription incised on its facade, 38 is a square-plan structure whose
facade is articulated by a series of slightly recessed niches closely resembling the
Lodi-period tombs of Delhi.

One more structure suggests the persistence of the older Lodi style. It is a
small three-bayed single-aisled mosque in Fatehabad (Hisar District,
Haryana), known as the Humayuni mosque (Plate 14). An inscription now
detached from the structure bears the date 1539 and describes the construction
of a mosque during Humayun’s reign. This is probably the very mosque
identified in the inscription. 39 Although another inscription on the mosque
indicates that it was renovated in the nineteenth century, features from the time
of Humayun are quite apparent. Small glazed tiles on the east facade, for
example, are reminiscent of those on two sixteenth-century buildings in Hansi,
about 30 km away: the Barsi gate restored in 1522 and the tomb of c Ali Mir

Tijara.

38 Subhash Parihar, Mughal Monuments in Punjab and Haryana (New Delhi, 1985), p. 29, plate 22.

39 ASIRy iv: 12, and Paul Horn, “Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Delhi,” Epigraphia

Indica , 11, 1884, p. 425.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE LEGACY BEQUEATHED

Plate 14. Mosque known as the Humayuni mosque, Fatehabad

THE LEGACY BEQUEATHED

Ibn Khaldun, the fourteenth-century Islamic political thinker and historian,
observed that the founders of dynasties generally channel substantial effort
into consolidating their political strength, leaving little time for extensive archi-
tectural construction . 40 Nonetheless, the architecture of both Babur and
Humayun sowed the seeds for future construction under the Mughals. This is
especially true for the types of works built, although the purpose and meaning
will change somewhat as the state matures and evolves its unique notions of
legitimacy. Babur introduced the char bagh garden, which for him was a visual
metaphor for his ability to control and order the arid Indian plains and ulti-
mately its population. Subsequently such gardens gain even greater popularity,
especially when used as a paradisical setting for funereal monuments. Before his
conquest of India, Babur had built no mosques. In Hindustan, however, he

40 Ibn Khaldun, The Maqaddimah, 3 vols., tr. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton, 1958), 1: 353-56.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

built mosques, probably because of his newly assumed role as a warrior in the
cause of Islam. Humayun, too, built at least one mosque; however, his
construction of palaces and pleasure pavilions reflected his apparent self'
indulgence. The palace and its role as the center of regal ceremony, increasingly
significant in each ruler's interpretation of the nature of Mughal kingship,
continues as a major architectural form through the eighteenth century. Babur
and Humayun, each keenly aware of their Timurid heritage, attempted to
introduce Timurid-inspired architectural forms and spatial conceptions into
India. Although the outcome was not necessarily successful, the ideology
behind such forms is maintained by their Mughal successors.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 3

THE AGE OF AKBAR

MUGHAL THEORIES OF KINGSHIP AND STATE POLITY

Akbar is generally recognized as the greatest and most capable of the Mughal
rulers. Under him Mughal polity and statecraft reached maturity; and under his
guidance the Mughals changed from a petty power to a major dynastic state.
From his time to the end of the Mughal period, artistic production on both an
imperial and sub-imperial level was closely linked to notions of state polity,
religion and kingship.

Humayun died in 1556, only one year after his return to Hindustan. Upon
hearing the call to prayers, he slipped on the steep stone steps of the library in
his Din-Panah citadel in Delhi. Humayun’s only surviving son and heir-
apparent, Akbar, then just fourteen years of age, ascended the throne and ruled
until 1605 the expanding Mughal empire. Until about 1561, Akbar was under
the control of powerful court factions, first his guardian, Bhairam Khan, and
then the scheming Maham Anga, a former imperial wet-nurse. Between about
1560 and 1580, Akbar devoted his energies to the conquest and then the con-
solidation of territory in north India. This he achieved through battle, marriage,
treaty and, most significantly, administrative reform. Concurrent with these
activities, Akbar developed an interest in religion that, while initially a
personal concern, ultimately transformed his concept of state. Many of the
policies he adopted, such as the renunciation of the poll-tax ( jiziya ) for non-
Muslims, had a solid political basis as well as a personal one, for Akbar, much
more than his Mughal predecessors, saw every advantage in maintaining good
relations with the Hindu majority. Moreover, during this period, Akbar
equally was interested in winning over the sympathy of orthodox Indian
Muslims. In part, his goal was to reduce the power of the dominant Iranian
nobles, that is, Persian and Central Asian nobles, by including Indians, both
Hindu and Muslim, in his administration.

Always interested in religious affairs, Akbar showed a deep reverence for
saints belonging to the Islamic Chishti order. His devotion to them peaked
between 1 568 and 1 579. This coincides with the period that he commenced the
khanqah and palace at Fatehpur Sikri, whose construction was stimulated by
his spiritual guide (pir) who resided there. Commencing about 1575, Akbar’s
interest in religions and religious matters broadened. First, he invited learned
men from diverse Islamic sects and later Christian priests, Hindus, Jains and

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Zoroastrians to join him in discussions, which more often than not turned into
petty disputes, particularly among the leading Muslim thinkers. The result led
Akbar increasingly away from formalized religion and into a deep personal
spiritualism with strong mystical overtones, but one that was rooted within the
font of Islam.

The events of the later part of his reign were marked by an attempt to
control the Deccan plateau of central south India and territory in the northwest
including Kashmir, Qandahar and Baluchistan. His final years were spent in
conflict with his only surviving son, Salim, the future Jahangir, who rebelled
against his father, establishing his own court in Allahabad. Eventually Salim
and Akbar were reconciled, but it is believed by some that Akbar died poisoned
by his son.

Our knowledge of Akbar's thought and policy comes from the writings of
Abu al-Fazl, Akbar's chronicler and close companion. The first part of his
massive Persian text commenced about 1589 was the Akbar Nama, or the Book
of Akbar; it is a eulogistic chronicle of the events of Akbar's reign. The second
part, known as the A ’in - i Akbari , or Regulations of Akbar , is a manual of state-
craft. Together these present Akbar’s mature concept of kingship and state.
These, in large measure, continued to serve as the basis of the Mughal state.

Abu al-Fazl presents Akbar as a divinely inspired ruler who traced his
lineage not only to his esteemed ancestor, Timur, but back further to a Mughal
princess whose offspring were the products of a miraculous impregnation by
light. 1 Describing Akbar as an emanation of God's light, Abu al-Fazl plays
upon light imagery, presenting the emperor as a superior being who had a
special relationship with God. By contrast, earlier Islamic kings were con-
sidered but shadows of God on earth.

Abu al-Fazl's writings indicate that Akbar, adhering to well-established
PersoTslamic concepts of sovereignty, believed that the ultimate justification
for the Mughal empire was the propagation of justice. He presents Akbar not
only as divinely inspired, but also as a paternal figure concerned for his
subjects' welfare. As patriarch of the state, Akbar's mantle does not only extend
to Muslims, traditionally the only valid subjects of an Islamic state, but to
non-Muslims as well. For example, in 1579, he issued a declaration ( mahzar )
allowing in some instances the emperor, rather than Islamic judges, to decide
matters that affected the lives of all his subjects. Akbar further underscored
toleration as a major concern of state by declaring his policy of sulh-i kul ,
universal toleration. That extended the canopy of justice to all, regardless of
religious affiliation, thus establishing the groundwork for the successful and
long-term domination of an Islamic state in the midst of a non-Muslim
majority.

1 Akbar Nama^ 1 : 37 .

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Under Akbar, Mughal administration was divided into three categories: the
household, the army and the empire. Akbar was the head of each of these, and
it was to him personally that all high-ranking nobles answered. To further
perpetuate his role as the head of state and as father to his people, Akbar estab-
lished the Din-i Ilahi, a disciple-like relationship between himself and his most
trusted nobles. Many have interpreted the Din-i Ilahi as a new religion. This is
a misunderstanding, resulting in part from the nature of Akbar’s relationship
with his highest-ranking nobles. This relationship can be likened to that
between an Islamic spiritual guide (pir) and his devotees (murids), or a master
and his slave. Understanding the nobles’ commitment to Akbar helps explain
the diffusion of a uniform aesthetic across Mughal territory.

akbar’s patronage

Architecture in Delhi (1556-76)

Delhi, the traditional capital of north Indian Islamic rulers, served as Akbar’s
capital until 1565, when he commenced his massive Agra fort. This was
followed by the construction of other forts in strategically important locations
signaling the diminishing importance of Delhi, until its revival in the mid-
seventeenth century.

While ruling from Delhi, Akbar continued to reside in Humayun’s citadel,
Din-Panah. There is no example of Akbar’s architecture from these early years,
but leading members of his court built mosques and tombs close to the
Din-Panah. For example, the Khair al-Manazil mosque and madrasa were
constructed in 1561 by Maham Anga. She had been one of Akbar’s wet-nurses
and had considerable influence over the young king during this early period.
Erected under the supervision of Shihab al-Din Ahmad Khan, her son-in-law,
the mosque closely follows the plan and elevation of the nearby Qal c a-i Kuhna
mosque probably built by Sher Shah. Her mosque is embellished with incised
stucco and paint in lieu of inlaid stone. Its courtyard is enclosed with high
cloistered walls used as a madrasa. The dominant feature of the mosque,
however, is not the prayer chamber, but its monumental east gate (Plate 1 5). It
is faced with red and white stones like those on the entrance gates into the
Din-Panah. This gate, which lay on a main thoroughfare linking the fort with
the city walls, commanded a dominant position in the city.

Nearby is the shrine ( dargah ) of Nizam al-Din Auliya. Restorations had
been made there in Babur’s and Humayun’s reigns, and further renovations
were made in Akbar’s time. In 1562 a noble of Akbar’s court, Farid al-Khan,
rebuilt Nizam al-Din’s tomb. The walls of this square-plan tomb consist of
marble screens (jalis ) supported by intricately carved pillars; the carved
geometric patterns are more finely rendered than those on the nearby tomb of

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 15. Gate, Khair al-Manazil mosque, Delhi

Khusrau (Plate 13) carved in Humayun’s reign. It is with this tomb that
marble, probably in emulation of the tomb of Mu c in al-Din in Ajmer, becomes
an emblem of sanctity in Mughal architecture.

In the dargah of Nizam al-Din is the tomb of Ataga Khan (Plate 16), built in
1 566-67 by his son Mirza c Aziz Koka. Ataga Khan, Akbar’s prime minister and
the husband of one of his wet-nurses, was murdered in 1 562 by the jealous son
of Maham Anga. The square plan of this tomb follows the older Indian tomb-
types, while its red sandstone exterior inlaid with multi-colored stones and
white marble slabs carved with Quranic verses reflects the influence of the
exquisite Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque (Plate 5). This is the first Akbar-period
monument for which we know the names of both the architect, Ustad Khuda
Quli, and the calligrapher, Baqi Muhammad of Bukhara. The verses on the
tomb were chosen carefully, referring specifically to the nature of Ataga Khan’s
demise, which Akbar’s court chronicler Abu al-Fazl likens to martyrdom. 2

Ataga Khan’s murderer, Adham Khan, was immediately punished by death.
Adham Khan’s large octagonal tomb (Plate 17), containing his grave and that
of his mother, who died a few months later, was erected by imperial order

1 Anthony Welch, “A Problem of Sultanate Architectural Calligraphy,” forthcoming, and Akbar
Nama , n: 269.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AKBAR’S PATRONAGE

Plate 1 6. Partial facade, tomb of Ataga Khan, Delhi

15 km south of Akbar’s Delhi. 3 By contrast to Ataga Khan’s tomb, reflecting
the apex of Mughal technology and taste, his murderer’s tomb, stucco covered
and octagonal in format, represents the end of this older type. Octagonal tombs
once had been associated with royalty, for example by the Surs, considered
traitors by the Mughals. Thus a tomb-type associated with traitors was
particularly suitable for the once-leading, now disgraced, noble, Adham Khan.

Timurid features are often evident in some of the most important Akbari
buildings in Delhi, including his finest work there, his father’s tomb. Many of
these features are, however, largely dropped in Akbar’s buildings constructed
after moving the capital to Agra. Among the works that recall architecture in
the Mughal homeland is the Sabz Burj, located south of the citadel. The tomb
is probably a product of Akbar’s reign, although it may date as early as
Humayun’s reign. It is designed as a Baghdadi octagon (see glossary) with a high
dome resting on an elongated neck; originally green tiles covered its surface.

At least as clearly based on Timurid prototypes is the largest structure
erected in Delhi during the early years of Akbar’s reign, the tomb of the
deceased emperor Humayun (Plates 18-19). Situated just south of the Din-
Panah citadel and in close proximity to the esteemed dargah of Nizam al-Din,

3 Akbar Nama,\\: 275 .

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 1 7. Tomb of Adham Khan, Delhi

the mausoleum even today dominates its surroundings. A contemporary
Mughal source indicates that the tomb was finished in 1571 after eight or nine
years of work. 4 Tradition states that a devoted wife, Hajji Begum, was respon-
sible for its construction; recently, however, Akbar has been proposed as the
patron, 5 even though the tomb resembles none of Akbar’s other architectural
enterprises. Its Timurid appearance must be credited to its Iranian architect,
trained in the Timurid tradition and known from contemporary texts as both
Mirak Sayyid Ghiyas and Mirak Mirza Ghiyas. 6 His masterpiece came to be
influential in the design of Mughal mausolea through the eighteenth century.

Mirak Mirza Ghiyas, originally from Herat, may have been a stone cutter
who had worked for Babur. He worked extensively in Bukhara, where he
excelled at buildings and landscape architecture. Around 1562, he returned to
India to design HumayuiTs tomb. Before its completion, however, he died. His
son completed the great project in 1571.

4 al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh , 3 vols. tr. G. S. A. Ranking, W. H. Lowe and W. Haig
(reprinted., Patna, 1973), 11: 135.

5 Glenn Lowry, “Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function and Meaning in Early Mughal Architecture,”
Muqamas, 4, 1987, 136.

6 Contemporary discussion of the tomb and architect is in al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh , 11:
135, and Bukhari, Mudhakkir-i Ahbab, pp. 37, 103, 283-86. Secondary discussions are in Golombek,
“From Tamerlane to the Taj Mahal,” pp. 48—49 and W. E. Begley, “Mirak, Mirza Ghiyas,”
Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects (New York, 1982), 11: 194-95.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

AKBAR’S PATRONAGE

Plate 1 8. HumayuiTs tomb, Delhi

Today the tomb complex is entered by a large gate on the west, although in
Mughal times the southern gate was widely used. Upon entering any gate, the
centrally situated tomb and its char bagh setting are visible. Each of the four
garden plots is further sub-divided by narrower waterways. Based on the char
bagh types established in Iran and more fully developed in Babur’s own
concept of the ideal garden, such formalized and geometrically planned garden
settings became standard for all the imperial Mughal mausolea and for those
of many nobles as well. Char bagh gardens long had been associated with
paradisical imagery. But at Humayun’s tomb, the association is all the more
explicit, for the water channels appear to vanish beneath the actual mausoleum
yet reappear in their same straight course on the opposite side. This evokes a
Quranic verse which describes rivers flowing beneath gardens of paradise.

The mausoleum is square in plan, 45 meters on a side. Crowned with a white
marble bulbous dome and flanking chattris , the tomb sits on a high elevated
plinth 99 meters per side. Each facade, faced with red sandstone and trimmed
with white marble, is nearly identical and meets at chamferred corners. The
west, north and east facades are marked by a high central portal flanked on
either side by lower wings with deeply recessed niches. The south entrance,
probably the main one, consists of lower wings on either side of a high central
pishtaq , underneath which is a deeply recessed niche.

The seeming simplicity of this tomb’s exterior is belied by the interior.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

There, on the ground floor, the mausoleum has a central octagonal chamber
containing a cenotaph. This chamber is surrounded by eight ancillary rooms, a
radical departure from the single chamber of earlier Indian tombs. Passages
connect these smaller chambers with the main one and with the outside. The
second story of the tomb is similar. Such a spatial arrangement is based on
geometric principles first applied in Timurid architecture and seen in structures
such as the c Ishrat Khana built about 1464 and used as a dynastic mausoleum
for women.

These eight ancillary chambers are intended to evoke the paradises of Islamic
cosmology. The passages connecting them are probably intended to facilitate
circumambulation of the cenotaph in the central chamber. This ritual, drawn
from sufic rites, was a common practice at Mughal imperial tombs.

The tomb’s adherence to geometric principle and the complexity of its
internal organization bear a clear imprint of Timurid tradition. This is not
surprising since the architect himself had worked extensively in Bukhara, the
last bastion of Timurid artistic traditions. Coupled with the fact that Humayun
and his wife had long been exiled in Iran and developed a taste for an Iranian
aesthetic, this easily explains the tomb’s appearance. Moreover, the Mughals
were extremely proud of their Timurid ancestry, and it is not without signifi-
cance that this Timurid-inspired tomb and setting continued for the most part
to serve as an important model for imperial tombs.

Some believe that Humayun’s tomb was conceived as a Mughal dynastic
mausoleum in the tradition of the great Timurid dynastic mausolea, for
example, the Gur-i Amir in Samarqand. 7 It was, however, not used as the
tomb for subsequent rulers, although some members of the royal house
were buried there. In 1565, only three years after its commencement, Akbar
began construction on his massive Agra fort and moved his administration
there.

Moving the imperial headquarters from Delhi did not signal its abandon-
ment by either the emperor or highly influential court members. For example,
Akbar in 1571 visited his father’s tomb upon its completion and in 1572-73
gave orders for the restoration of the Jama c at Khana mosque at the Nizam
al-Din dargah. In 1575-76, Akbar’s chief theologian ( sadr ), Shaikh c Abd
al-Nabi Khan, who wielded tremendous power until his fall from favor about
1580, constructed a mosque not in Agra or Fatehpur Sikri, then imperial
residences, but in Delhi, suggesting that the city still was envisioned as a major
urban center. This mosque, situated north of the Mughal Din-Panah, closely
resembled Maham Anga’s madrasa, although today few of its original features
remain. The structure’s epigraph, composed by Akbar’s poet laureate, Faizi,
the brother of Abu al-Fazl, does not specifically identify the structure’s

7 Lowry, “Humayun’s Tomb,” p. 137.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Plate 19. Plan of Humayun’s tomb

function, but its close adherence to the earlier madrasa suggests that it was
intended as a theological school, indicating Delhi’s continuing role as an
intellectual center.

Imperial forts and the formulation of Akbar's taste

While Humayun’s Timurid-inspired tomb was still under construction, Akbar
commenced a series of fort-palaces in a very different style at strategic locations
across north India. The first of these was his great fort at Agra, which he
commenced in 1565 and completed around 1571. Others that followed include

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 20. Akbar’s palace, Ajmer

Ajmer, the gate to Rajasthan, in 1570, and Lahore, traditionally guarding the
northwestern portion of the subcontinent, in 1575. Later, in 1583, Akbar built
a fort at Allahabad, situated east of Agra in the fertile Gangetic plain, a response
to widespread uprisings throughout eastern India two years earlier. Beside
these is his palace at Fatehpur Sikri, the most renowned of his capitals, although
not a fortified one.

Few Akbari structures remain within most of these forts. In Ajmer, two
Akbar-period palaces remain, each stone constructed. One is a trabeated struc-
ture today known as the Badshahi Mahal. Better known is a small palace, today
used as a museum (Plate 20). There a nine-bayed pillared pavilion is enclosed
within a fortified appearing quadrangle. In the Lahore fort Akbar’s structures
were replaced by subsequent rulers, and in the Allahabad fort, today still used
as a major military headquarters, only one of the Akbari structures remains
well-preserved. This is a baradari (pillared pavilion) situated in the center of a
courtyard. The first floor of this three-storied pillared structure bears a large
central chamber surrounded by eight ancillary ones and an encompassing
veranda. Buildings of such design had been used earlier at the Fatehpur Sikri
palace, and appear to have been specifically intended for imperial use. 8

8 Ebba Koch, “The Architectural Forms,” in Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.),

Fatehpur-Sikri (Bombay, 1987), 1 3 1 , 135.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 21. Jahangiri Mahal, Agra fort, Agra

Abu al-Fazl states that more than 500 stone buildings were constructed in the
Agra fort’s interior. 9 While that number may be exaggerated, all the same, very
few buildings remain. The fort was commenced in 1565 and completed in eight
years under the direction of Qasim Khan Mir Barr o Bahr. It was intended to
replace an older brick fort, so Akbar directed Qasim Khan to construct a
stone fortification that would have unprecedented strength. The plan of the
buttressed and crenellated walls, 22 meters high, roughly resembles a semicircle
about 2.5 km in circumference. According to contemporary sources, thousands
of workers, many of them stone masons, were employed on the project. The
red sandstone facing inlaid with white marble detail gives a sense of majesty to
the massive Delhi gate, the fort’s main entrance. The fort’s entire exterior,
constructed with finer materials and crafted more meticulously than any other
Indian fort, including Humayun’s Din-Panah, imparts an awesome sense of the
patron’s power. It was the role of architecture to impress, according to
traditional Islamic views of statecraft, and here Akbar succeeded immeasur-
ably. That was his intention, as his biographer, Abu al-Fazl, makes clear. 10

Within the fort the so-called Jahangiri Mahal (Plate 21) is the most notable

9 Ain, 11: 1 9 1 . 10 Ain, 1: 191.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

remaining building of Akbar’s time. Overlooking the river, this palace was
probably one of a series that originally lined the waterfront. Palaces closest to
the water in later periods are reserved for the king and his chief queens. This is
probably the case here, too. However, the use of particular rooms and court-
yards remains elusive, and indeed spaces that could serve multiple functions
appear to have been typical in Akbar’s palace architecture.

In plan and elevation the exterior of this Jahangiri Mahal closely resembles
the so-called Jodh Bai’s palace at Fatehpur Sikri or what remains of the small
fortified appearing enclosure at Akbar’s Ajmer palace. The main fabric of the
exterior is intricately carved red sandstone trimmed with white marble. The
heavily carved surfaces recall the Khalji-inspired Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque or pre-
Mughal monuments from Kanauj and Bari. The main entrance of the edifice
opens onto a large central courtyard flanked on its north and south sides by
pillared halls, whose red sandstone bracketed supports are even more intricate
versions of the sort of brackets seen on the Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque (Plate 5).
The interior walls, too, are ornately carved. Abu al-Fazl comments that the red
sandstone, quarried in the ridge of Fatehpur Sikri, hence known as Sikri sand-
stone, can be chiseled so skillfully that it is superior to wood. 11 Indeed, the
brackets of the Jahangiri Mahal have wooden prototypes, but they appear
earlier in stone on Man Singh Tomar’s Gwalior palace, built at the turn of the
sixteenth century. Both the layout and many of the motifs used on this earlier
palace, much admired by the Mughals, appear instrumental in the design of this
Agra palace and others built under Akbar’s auspices.

Typical of several Islamic palaces in Central Asia, the Jahangiri Mahal’s
interior is symmetrically arranged around a central courtyard; a second court-
yard on the east overlooks the river. A number of ancillary chambers and
passages lead off from the central courtyard. Among these on the north is a
large chamber with a flat roof supported by serpentine brackets. The source for
such brackets is usually cited as Gujarat, especially Hindu or Jain architecture
there. But such brackets long had been used in the Sultanate architecture of
Gujarat and Bengal as well as at the Gwalior palace.

On the roof of this multi-storied building is a small rectangular pavilion with
a veranda on three of its sides, whose exquisitely carved brackets in the shape
of peacocks earlier appeared on the Gwalior palace. The attention to all stories,
not just the ground floor, underscores the extraordinary quality of this palace.
It was one of the few Akbari buildings in this fort that Shah Jahan maintained.

Aspects of this palace, especially the carved geometric patterns and even its
trabeated form, may draw from the Timurid tradition. But its overall appear-
ance reflects the form of domestic architecture, both Hindu and Muslim,
popular across north India prior to Akbar’s time. For example, trabeated

11 Ain, i: 233.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar's patronage

structures, the most common type in all Akbari palaces, were used for the
palaces of the sultans of Chanderi. And residential structures in fifteenth- and
early sixteenth-century paintings executed for both Hindu and Muslim patrons
across north India were depicted as flat-roofed, not arcuated. 12 While Akbar’s
trabeated palaces may have Timurid origins, contemporary writers recognized
their form as Indian. For example, Abu al-Fazl indicates a pan-Indian secular
basis for Akbar's buildings in the Agra fort. He remarks that the Agra fort was
built in the “fine styles of Bengal and Gujarat,” 13 commonly taken to indicate
that Akbar based his palaces on Hindu buildings from Bengal and Gujarat.
Akbar's architecture, however, was not based on any particular sectarian form.
While some features of Akbar's buildings may be Bengali in origin or explicitly
Gujarati, most of these motifs are found widely. Therefore, Abu al-Fazl's state-
ment may be taken more on a figurative level than a literal one. That is, the
architecture of Bengal and Gujarat was considered the most exquisite of the
age, as we can tell from Babur's enthusiasm for the edifices of Chanderi built in
the Gujarati style and Humayun’s love for the palaces of Gujarat and Bengal.
Thus “the fine styles of Bengal and Gujarat” is probably a metaphor for that
which was deemed the ultimate in architectural perfection. Moreover, as
Bengal and Gujarat at the time that Abu al-Fazl was writing essentially marked
the eastern and western boundaries of the Indian subcontinent, he may have
been alluding to styles that found favor throughout north India and symboli-
cally were brought together with the construction of Akbar’s palace-fort in
Agra, which he terms “the center of Hindustan.” 14

The new capital at Fatehpur Sikri

Akbar remained heirless until 1 569 when his son, the future Jahangir, was born
in the village of Sikri, 38 km west of Agra. That year Akbar commenced
construction there of the religious compound as a sign of his esteem for the
Chishti saint, Shaikh Salim, his spiritual adviser who had predicted the birth of
his son. After Jahangir's second birthday, probably considered an adequate
period to test his stamina since all the emperor's other offspring had died in
infancy, Akbar commenced construction at Sikri of a walled city and imperial
palace. He shifted his capital from Agra to this city, which came to be called
Fatehpur Sikri. Just as Humayun's tomb earlier had been placed close to the
Chishti dargah , Nizam al-Din, so Akbar situated his palace at a Chishti site.
By constructing his capital at the khanqah of his spiritual adviser, Akbar
associated himself with this popular sufi order and so brought further

12 See Chandra and Khandalavala, Illustrated Aranyaka Parvan , plate 6, and Robert Skelton, “The
Ni c mat Nama: A Landmark in Malwa Painting,” Marg , xn, 1959, fig. 7.

13 Ain, 11: 191. M Akbar Nama, 11: 372.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

legitimacy to his reign through affiliation with popular yet orthodox
Islam. 15

The city is surrounded by about 1 1 km of walls except on the south, where
there was a lake. Situated atop a rocky ridge (about 3 km in length and 1 km
wide), the royal enclave, consisting of the Chishti khanqah and palace, form the
focal point of the city and the best preserved area (Plate 22). The numerous
structures comprising this area are made from locally quarried red sandstone,
known as Sikri sandstone. Although the site has been carefully studied, the
identification and original purpose of many buildings there remain in question.
The names they bear today were invented, largely for the benefit of nineteenth-
century European visitors to the site. Probably, in fact, the buildings had no
single purpose, in keeping with Islamic tradition, but were adaptable to serve
many functions. This matches well with Akbar’s fluid and spontaneous
approach to court ceremony. 16

Akbar’s orders for the construction of this great city included nobles’
dwellings, a great mosque, imperial palaces, baths, serais, a bazaar, gardens,
schools, a khanqah and workshops. Thus Fatehpur Sikri was more than a royal
residence; it had an economic, administrative and residential base. Contem-
porary accounts stress that the city was finished quickly. Work was ceaseless.
One European visitor stated that because the work was done a short distance
away and then assembled at the site, the inhabitants were spared from the stone
masons’ constant noise. 17 The city, however, was only inhabited by Akbar for
about fifteen years. Then in 1585 he assumed residence in Lahore to be closer
to the less stable part of his empire.

Situated on the highest place on the ridge, the khanqah is the site’s focal
point. Within this religious compound, m by 139 meters, is an enormous
Jami c mosque (Plate 25), its cloistered enclosure walls, three entrance gates, and
the tomb of Shaikh Salim Chishti (Plate 26). Beneath the courtyard are under-
ground reservoirs, an important consideration for a site which suffers from a
poor water supply.

The Buland Darwaza (Plate 23), the complex’s towering south entrance gate,
54 meters in height, is visible from a considerable distance. This enormous gate
was almost certainly constructed concurrently with the mosque complex.
While commonly believed that it was not erected until the early seventeenth
century, this gate was certainly designed before 1587, when the calligrapher
Ahmad al-Chishti, responsible for its monumental Quranic inscriptions, died.
The gate was probably built to commemorate Akbar’s successful Gujarat

13 John F. Richards, “The Imperial Capital,” in Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.), Fatehpur-
Sikri (Bombay, 1987), 66-67.

16 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” p. 142.

17 Anthony Monserrate, The Commentary of Father Monserrate, S.J., tr. J. S. Hoyland (London, 1922),
pp. 200-01.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

® s

/"pi

aLni

100m

Market

Shop-lined road
Karkhana or workshops
Octagonal baoli
Hiran Minar

Hathiya Pol or Elephant Gate
Public Audience Hall or
Daulat Khana-i c Amm o Khass

8. Private Audience Hall or
Diwan-i Khass

9. AnupTalao with Turkish
Sultana's House and
Khwabgah on perimeters

10. Courtyard of Akbar's jharoka
known as the Daftar Khana

11. Hammam

12. Courtyard of the Panch Mahal

13. Jodh Bai's palace

14. Raja Birbal's house

15. Serai

16. Courtyard of the Jami c
mosque or Khanqah

17. Jami c mosque

18. Tomb of Shaikh Salim Chishti

19. Tomb of c lsa Khan

20. Buland Darwaza

21. Hammam

Plate 22. Major structures at Akbar's palace, Fatehpur Sikri

campaign in 1573, when Sikri came to be known as Fatehpur Sikri, the City of
Victory. 18 This monumental gate, however, was probably less intended to
commemorate a military victory than to underscore Akbar’s links with the
Chishti order. Its surface is covered by marble slabs inscribed with Quranic
verses promising paradise to true believers, appropriate for the entrance into a
khanqah , a complex intended for meditation and devotion.

The Jami c mosque (Plates 24-25) is situated on the west side of the complex
so that it can face Mecca as required in Islam. An inscription on the mosque’s
east facade states that it was built in 1571-72 by Shaikh Salim himself, while
interior inscriptions are dated 1574, indicating its completion. Textual

18 S. A. A. Rizvi and John Vincent Flynn, Fathpur Sikri (Bombay, 1975), pp. 86-89, and Richards,
“Imperial Capital,” 67.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 23. Buland Darwaza, Fatehpur Sikri

references also verify that the mosque was finished about this time. 19 Measur-
ing 89 by 20 meters, the mosque was at that time the largest in the Mughal
empire. The exterior is marked by a high central pisbtaq flanked on either side
by delicately arched side wings. In addition to domes a row of small cbattris
crown the entire eastern edge of the roof. The mosque’s multiple arched
openings resting on slender pillars recall pre-Mughal Jami c mosques at
Chanderi and Mandu. The superstructure also appears to be modeled on the
type seen in the Mandu Jami c mosque; however, at Fatehpur Sikri, cbattris are
used in lieu of smaller domes. Thus much of the facade’s overall appearance
derives from an older pre-Mughal Indian tradition, but the high central pisbtaq
is characteristic of all Mughal Jami c mosques and can be considered a Mughal
interpretation of an older Timurid architectural device. Here the Timurid
origins of this pisbtaq are more apparent than on Babur’s or Humayun’s
mosques, for, like Timurid portals, the recessed portion above the arched
entrance is vaulted.

19 Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.), Fatekpur-Sikri: A Sourcebook (Cambridge, 1985),
pp. 55-58, 227. Hereafter cited as Sourcebook.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 24. Jami c mosque, Fatehpur Sikri

The mosque’s interior central bay is a vastly more sophisticated rendition of
the type found in the Jami c mosques built under Humayun and Babur. Behind
the central pishtaq is the mosque’s main prayer chamber magnificently
embellished with white marble inlaid into the red stone to form intricate
geometric patterns. Painted arabesques and floral motifs are rendered in poly-
chrome and gilt, creating the most impressive Mughal monument of its time.
While such patterns were known in the late Lodi and Sur times in India, the
sophistication and intricacy of the motifs suggest an awareness of Timurid
prototypes.

Side wings flank the mosque’s central bay. Each is composed of multi-aisled
trabeated bays and a double-aisled pillared veranda. The elegant slender red
sandstone pillars of the side wings are surmounted by brackets similar to those
on Akbar’s Jahangiri Mahal in his Agra fort. This mosque is a unique blend of
long-established Indian and Timurid techniques.

Akbar himself is said to have humbly swept the floor and called the prayer
in this mosque. Yet, ironically, some of Akbar’s acts here alienated the ortho-
dox c ulema , the Islamic scholars and jurists who traditionally have ultimate
authority over matters religious. Here in 1579 he himself read the khutba , the
prayer legitimizing an Islamic ruler’s sovereignty. Although this had been done
by his Timurid ancestors, in India the c ulema interpreted this as an attempt by
Akbar to declare himself the arbitrator of religious affairs and thus a radical
move. Then two months later Akbar issued the declaration ( mahzar ) which
assigned to himself limited power in deciding religious matters. This
declaration was approved unwillingly by the leading religious arbitrators and
further alienated the orthodox c ulema. In fact, the mahzar was more a
political document than a religious one, for it allowed Akbar control over
secular and administrative affairs; his authority over religious matters was
limited to instances when the leading religious figures failed to agree.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 25. Jami c mosque, Fatehpur Sikri

Shaikh Salim, Akbar’s spiritual adviser who had predicted the birth of his
son, died in 1572. His tomb (Plate 26) was completed almost a decade later, in
1 5 80-8 1 , as indicated by inscriptions on its inner walls, even though it probably
was commenced much earlier. This white marble single-domed building
measuring 1 5 meters square is rightfully considered a masterpiece. The interior
square chamber is surrounded by an enclosed corridor to facilitate circum-
ambulation of the tomb. This tomb-type was known earlier in Gujarat, the
source of this plan. The outer walls are composed of intricately carved white
marble screens (jalis ). Although less intricate, pierced screens are on the
exterior of Shaikh Ahmad Khattu’s tomb at Sarkhej, Gujarat’s premier shrine.
Exquisitely carved serpentine brackets belonging to the Indo-Islamic architec-
tural traditions of Mandu, Chanderi and Gujarat support deep eaves ( cbajja )
that encircle the entire tomb and its projecting south entrance porch. These
screens and the multi-colored stone flooring, similar to that at Sarkhej, were
donated by a noble, Qutb al-Din Muhammad Khan, at his own expense; he had
served in Gujarat and was buried in Baroda in 1 583. 20

Artisans trained in Gujarat and brought to Fatehpur Sikri by Qutb al-Din
Muhammad Khan worked on Shaikh Salim’s tomb. However, the features
derived from the tomb of Shaikh Ahmad Khattu may have been used inten-
tionally, for this shrine had been built by the sultans of Gujarat, and like the

20 Ebba Koch, “Influence of Mughal Architecture,” in
1988), 169-70.

George Michell (ed.), Ahmadabad (Bombay,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 2 6. Tomb of Shaikh Salim Chishti, Fatehpur Sikri

shrine of Shaikh Salim Chishti at Fatehpur Sikri was at the site of their palace.
Flence the sultans of Gujarat are linked with Shaikh Ahmad Khattu, much as
Akbar sought to link his rule with the Chishti saint.

Akbar’s association with the Chishti saint explains the reason behind the
tomb’s extraordinary workmanship. Even its fabric, white marble, links it with
the Chishti order. Twenty years earlier the tomb of the Chishti saint Nizam
al-Din in Delhi had been renewed in white marble. It is ironic, however, that
Shaikh Salim’s tomb was not completed until Akbar began to break with the
Chishti, in fact, with all saint veneration. After 1579, Akbar no longer made his
annual pilgrimage on foot to the shrine of Mu c in al-Din Chishti. Stopping this
practice of long standing, he stated that saint worship was a shallow preoccu-
pation, not a profound religious one.

Akbar probably commenced the tomb as a means of exerting authority over
this popular Islamic order. He also denied the shaikh’s descendants hereditary
custodianship of the tomb, by now a popular site of pilgrimage. Instead, Akbar
himself appointed the shrine’s supervisor. The emperor had assumed similar
control over the premier dargah of Mu c in al-Din Chishti in Ajmer in 1570,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

when he resolved a dispute regarding the shrine’s successorship by appointing
his own candidate. Thus, at both important Chishti sites, Akbar himself
held the reins on matters elsewhere left to a saint’s spiritual heirs. Chishti
descendants, instead of serving these dargahs , were encouraged to enter
imperial service, suggesting that Akbar’s association with this mystic order
served himself in political ways as well as spiritual ones. 21

Akbar’s palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri lies to the southeast of the mosque.
This complex was clearly planned, for the palace buildings are axially and
geometrically related to the khanqah. 22 Abu al-Fazl described Akbar’s archi-
tects and designers as “lofty-minded mathematicians”; 23 even the emperor, one
chronicler stated, had a “geometry decoding mind,” 24 and his architecture was
described by the court biographer as understandable to “the minds of the
mathematical.” 25 Geometry here serves as a metaphor for Akbar’s control and
power. 26

The Hathiya Pol, or Elephant gate, situated at the southern end of the palace
complex, was probably the imperial entrance. 27 Here there was a naqqar khana ,
or chamber where ceremonial drums were played. 28 The view toward this
southern entrance is imposing, almost as spectacular as that toward the
powerful Buland Darwaza on the north. In front of the Hathiya Pol is a
large serai. Beyond the gate, the chattris and roofs of the palaces are visible.
Once one enters the gate, there is access to both the mosque complex (Plate 25)
and the palace structures, including the Daulat Khana-i Khass o c Amm, or
Public Audience Hall (Plate 28), one of the most important administrative
units.

All Indian forts have an entrance associated with elephants. They probably
were intended for the entry of palanquined elephants, in India long considered
the imperial mount. For Akbar, moreover, elephants appear to have had a
special importance. His reverence for these animals is discussed by Abu al-Fazl,
who notes that they can only be controlled by wise and intelligent men. In the
illustrated Akbar Nama in the Victoria and Albert Museum, generally believed
to have been Akbar’s personal copy, elephants are frequently depicted, and
on several pages there are illustrations of Akbar controlling mad elephants -
elephants that no other mortal could ride. As the emperor indicated to Abu

21 J. F. Richards, “The Formulation of Imperial Authority under Akbar and Jahangir,” in J. F. Richards
(ed.), Kingship and Authority in South Asia (Madison, 1978), 257.

22 Attilio Petruccioli, “The Geometry of Power: The City’s Planning,” in Michael Brand and Glenn D.
Lowry (eds.), Fatehpur-Sikri (Bombay, 1987), 50-64.

23 Akbar Nama, 11: 372.

24 Muhammad c Arif Qandahari, “Tarikh-i Akbari,” in Sourcebook , p. 36.

25 Akbar Nama, 11: 372.

26 Petruccioli, “Geometry of Power,” 56-58.

27 Glenn D. Lowry, “Urban Structures and Functions,” in Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.),
Fatehpur-Sikri (Bombay, 1987), 29-30.

28 al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh , 11: 219.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 27. Hiran Minar, Fatehpur Sikri

al-Fazl, successfully riding such a beast without being killed should be taken as
a sign of God’s contentment with him. 29

At the foot of the rampart leading to the Hathiya Pol is a minaret spiked with
stone projections resembling elephant tusks (Plate 27). Popularly known as the
Hiran Minar and considered a hunting tower, it is not mentioned in any con-
temporary text. This tower, derived from Iranian prototypes, was probably
used to indicate the starting point for subsequent mile posts ( kos minar ). 30 In
Mughal India, such mile posts were conical-shaped smooth-faced minarets;
many remain between Agra and Delhi as well as in other areas of northwestern
India and Pakistan. The tusk-like shape of the protruding stones appears
appropriate for this tower’s location near the Elephant gate, and may be yet
another reference to Akbar as controller of elephants and ultimately of the
well-run state.

To the east of the Elephant gate is a large quadrangular courtyard known as

29 Akbar Nama, n: 235. Illustrations from this manuscript are published in Geeti Sen, Paintings from
the Akbar Nama (Calcutta, 1984).

30 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” 125.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 28. Akbar’s throne, Public Audience Hall, Fatehpur Sikri

the Public Audience Hall. It is one of the few areas within the palace whose
function is certain. The road leading from the city walls to this audience hall
was lined with shops and markets that were commenced in 1 576-77. It is a focal
point of the palace, a secular one complementing the mosque complex. 31 The
rest of the palace lay between the mosque and audience hall, pivotal points
which reflect Akbar’s concerns with religion and the welfare of the state.

The structure enclosing the courtyard is simple given the nature of its
importance, for here the emperor presented himself to all levels of the nobility
and to others who wanted recourse to the king. This structure is essentially a
pillared flat-roofed veranda, called an aiwan , 32 In the center of the west wall is
a projection where Akbar sat enthroned (Plate 28). His subjects, when con-
fronting him, faced the qibla or direction of prayer, perhaps suggesting the
metaphor of Akbar as the qibla of the state. 33 This imperial chamber was even
used as a mosque.

Due west of the Public Audience Hall is an area which appears to have been
reserved for the emperor’s private administrative and personal matters. Only a
few structures in this area can be identified with much certainty. One of these
is the Anup Talao, a square pool in whose center was a pavilion. Its base still

31 Lowry, “Urban Structures,” 33.

32 The term aiwan in Indian Persian during the Mughal period means pillared hall, while elsewhere it
usually indicates a vaulted entrance.

33 Lowry, “Urban Structures,” 33.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 29. Carved panel, Turkish Sultana’s House, Fatehpur Sikri

remains connected to each of the pool’s four edges by stone planks. Here,
Akbar engaged in serious discussion regarding Islamic law with leading
Muslim theologians, as several contemporary writers describe. They also note
that he filled this tank with gold coins and distributed them to shaikhs and
amirs.

Surrounding the tank are trabeated structures, most of them a single story
high. One, known as the Turkish Sultana’s House, is completely covered with
carvings of geometric patterns, trees, flowering vines, birds and animals.
Although some of this ornamentation draws upon earlier Indian imagery, the
decor of this palace, more than that of any other residential or civic structure
here, is based on Timurid tradition. 34 The richly carved ornamentation (Plate
29) situated at floor level indicates that here inhabitants were intended to sit on
silk and cotton cushions, not stand as in a public audience hall. The ceiling and
walls, too, were often covered with luxurious fabrics. Thus we must recall that
these buildings were not simply red sandstone, but decked, as contemporary
accounts remind us, with rich textile trappings.

On the south edge of the Anup Talao is a multi-storied building,

34 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” 14 1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 30. Akbar’s jharoka , exterior facade, Daftar Khana, Fatehpur Sikri

traditionally known as the Khwabgah, or Akbar’s sleeping chamber. Its plain
architectural members bear traces of figural painting and calligraphy, suggest-
ing that structures not carved were polychromed. The painted verses make
direct reference to Akbar, calling him “the adorner of the realm of Hindus-
tan,” 35 and so suggesting that this palace was intended for imperial use. Further
underscoring this is the plan of the top story, consisting of a central rectangu-
lar pavilion with a flat interior roof surrounded by a pillared veranda, a type
identified at Akbar’s Allahabad fort as one intended for imperial use. 36

On the southernmost side of a courtyard aligned with the Khwabgah and
immediately to its south is the so-called Daftar Khana, or records office (Plate
30). It consists of a small room with a large open window that overlooks the
terrain below. This was Akbar’s jharoka , the window at which daily he dis-
played himself to his subjects. 37 Although this ritual was derived from a custom
of Hindu kings, the Mughals earlier had adopted it. For example, after
Humayun’s death, a man resembling the deceased ruler was displayed at a
similar window in the Delhi citadel until the young Prince Akbar could be
crowned. Such regular appearances reassured the population that all was well
in the state.

Of all the buildings at Fatehpur Sikri, a small square building commonly
known as the Diwan-i Khass (Plate 31) has been the subject of greatest specu-
lation. Its location, situated just behind the Public Audience Hall and aligned
with the jharoka , indicates that this was the Private Audience Hall. The

33 Rizvi and Flynn, Fathpur Sikri, p. 30.

36 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” 13 1. 37 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” 125-26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 31. Diwan-i Khass, Fatehpur Sikri

exterior fits well with the other trabeated palace pavilions at Fatehpur Sikri. Its
interior, however, is unique. There in the center of the building's single
chamber is an elaborately carved faceted pillar reaching about half of the build-
ing s total height (Plate 32). Its capital is composed of serpentine brackets,
reminiscent of those appearing in the Sultanate architecture of Gujarat, Mandu
and Lodi Delhi. These brackets, fuller at the top than at the bottom, support a
circular platform. It is connected to each corner of the building by stone slab

walkways attached to the building's corners. A narrow path circumscribes the
structure connecting the walkways.

Akbar probably sat upon this central platform. Thus some believe that here
he projected himself as a chakravartin , or universal ruler, following the
indigenous Indian notions of kingship; 38 however, since Akbar’s deep interest
in Hinduism and other non-Islamic traditions developed after much of
Fatehpur Sikri was well under construction, this theory must be viewed as
tentative. More likely, Akbar sat on this central platform to project himself as
the dominant figure in the Mughal state, its axis and the pillar of its support.

38 For example, John Hoag, Islamic Architecture (New York, 1977), pp. 366-71.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 32. Interior pillar, Diwan-i Khass, Fatehpur Sikri

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

akbar’s patronage

Plate 33. Panch Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri

West of this area is a number of small palace complexes. Nearly all of them
are multi-storied trabeated buildings. Often they are assumed to be the resi-
dences of Akbar’s queens and nobles. More probably they housed only princes
and women of the household, for all of them were linked to the Khwabgah, or
imperial chamber, by covered screened passageways.

The tallest of these is the so-called Panch Mahal (Plate 33). The name derives
from its five tiers, the final one consisting of a large single chattri. Suggestions
that this was a pleasure pavilion are stimulated by its elevation and design,
assumed to take advantage of cooling breezes. Because this tall building
provided a view of the areas reserved for the emperor and the royal household,
only the most trusted would have had access to it. Pierced stone screens faced
the facade and probably sub-divided the interior as well, suggesting that it was
used by the women of the imperial harem.

The largest among these small palace complexes is today called Jodh Bai’s
palace. This may have been the first palace constructed at Fatehpur Sikri since
it leads most directly, via a passage that once was covered, to the Hathiya Pol.
This palace’s scale has prompted suggestions that it was the principal residence
of Akbar’s harem. The building, enclosing a square courtyard, is entered by an
arched gate recalling the one at Akbar’s Ajmer palace. The rooms of the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

interior are trabeated. Their carved ornamentation derives more than that of
any other palace from the traditions of Gujarat. The sinuous brackets atop
recessed niches on the palace’s interior recall similar ornamentation on both
mosques and Hindu temples of Gujarat. Likewise, the hanging chain-and-bell
motif carved on many of the pillars has precedents in the Hindu and Muslim
architecture of pre-Mughal Gujarat and Bengal.

The so-called House of Raja Birbal, one of Akbar’s principal courtiers, is
inscribed with a date corresponding to 1572. A phrase following this date,
“royal mansion of initiation,” 39 suggests that its purpose was not residential,
but ceremonial or even administrative. It emphasizes how little we know about
the function of Fatehpur Sikri’s buildings.

The carved ornamentation of this palace, like that of most of the others, is
deeply rooted in the decor of both Hindu and Muslim Indian architecture. For
example, the palace’s frequent chandrashala motifs were long used in pre-
Islamic Indian architecture, as well as on Sultanate buildings. The ornate
brackets, too, while much earlier seen on Hindu buildings, long had been
incorporated into the basic vocabulary of Sultanate architecture. Buildings that
would appeal to both Hindus and Muslims were important since these forts
and palaces were recognized as vital in the maintenance of Akbar’s well-
balanced state. 40

Akbar’s choice of a style that appealed to all subjects regardless of sectarian
affiliation is better understood if we consider certain imperial policies promul-
gated while Fatehpur Sikri and the Agra and Ajmer forts were built. Abu al-
Fazl clearly indicates that Akbar, adhering to well-established Perso-Islamic
concepts of sovereignty, believed that the ultimate justification for the Mughal
empire was the propagation of justice. Under Akbar, Abu al-Fazl reports, the
canopy of justice was extended officially to all subjects regardless of religious
affiliation. This is his policy of sulh-i kul , or universal toleration. The policy
was evolving at the very time Fatehpur Sikri was under construction. In other
words, the inclusion of styles appropriate to all groups of the nobility - that is,
the political strength of the empire - was truly in keeping with Akbar’s nascent
policy of universal toleration.

In the early 1 560s, prior to the construction of his palaces, Akbar instituted
liberal treatment of Hindus, for example, forbidding the forced conversion of
prisoners to Islam and renouncing the jiziya , the tax on non-Muslims. Politi-
cal, not personal, considerations probably stimulated these measures and
suggested the styles adopted for his palaces. It was not until much later, in the
1580s and 1 590s, that Akbar began personally to adopt indigenous Indian
customs and practices.

However, when these palaces were erected, Akbar equally was as concerned

39 Sourcebook , p. 258. 40 Ain, 1: 232.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

with winning over the sympathy of the orthodox Indian Muslims. For
example, the reorganization of the Sadarat (chief religious and legal office)
probably was aimed specifically at gaining favor with the Indian Muslims, a
group that in the previous Mughal rulers’ administration held no power.
Akbar’s goal in doing this was to reduce the influence of the dominant Iranian
nobles, that is, Central Asian and Persian nobles, by including Indian Muslims
and even Hindus in his administration. In other words, what we see in these
nascent stages of Akbar’s policy of sulh-i kul is an attempt to place the
indigenous elements of Indian society, be they Hindu or Muslim, on an equal
footing with the traditionally more favored and powerful Central Asian and
Persian nobility . 41

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Once Akbar left Fatehpur Sikri, he built little. In the emperor’s stead, his amirs
served as architectural patrons, particularly in the developing Mughal hinter-
lands. Some nobles had provided buildings long before Akbar’s departure from
Fatehpur Sikri, in part to gain imperial favor. But especially in the later phases
of Akbar’s reign, patronage by nobles became increasingly significant. Much of
this reflected the complex relationship between the emperor and his nobility.
While the Mughal emperor was the highest authority, his power depended on
carefully balanced and constantly fluctuating relationships with his own nobles
and local rulers, be they Hindu or Muslim. By extension, these non-imperial
works often aided the spread of styles favored by the center.

Raja Man Singh, Hindu patron and Mughal agent

Raja Man Singh was a Hindu in the court of the Muslim Akbar and one of his
highest ranking amirs. Although his landholdings shifted as his appointments
changed, he was a prince with stable ancestral lands ( watan jagir) as well. The
buildings that he constructed on these lands provide insight into the relation-
ship between the emperor and his nobles as well as into the extension of
Mughal architecture in the hinterlands . 42

Raja Man Singh’s prolific patronage throughout the Mughal domain may in
part reflect his special status. His family, the Kachhwahas, was the first princely
house of Rajasthan to join the Mughal ranks and give their daughters in
marriage to Mughal princes and emperors. As a result, Man Singh and his

41 Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of his Religious Policy,
1 560-80,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1-2, 1968, 31-33.

42 The following discussion is developed in Catherine B. Asher, “Sub-Imperial Patronage: The Archi-
tecture of Raja Man Singh,” in Barbara S. Miller (ed.), Powers of Art: Patronage in Indian Culture
(New Delhi, 1992), pp. 183-201.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

father, Raja Bhagwant Das, were constant companions of Akbar. Akbar
developed deep affection for Man Singh. As prince, Man Singh served Akbar
well, leading major military campaigns. In 1589, after the death of Man Singh’s
father, Akbar awarded Man Singh the title raja as well as the highest rank
( mansab ) awarded at that time.

Raja Man Singh’s architecture includes palaces and gardens, temples and
even mosques. Among temples are the Govind Deva temple in Brindavan (Plate
34), not far from Agra, and the Jagat Shiromani temple in Amber (Plate 35), the
seat of Raja Man Singh’s ancestral land. Inscriptions on the Govind Deva
temple, dated 1 590, suggest it was built to commemorate his recently deceased
father. The Jagat Shiromani temple, too, was built to honor a recently deceased
relative, Raja Man Singh’s eldest son and heir apparent who died in 1 599. Other
temples he built also memorialized recently deceased family members.

Raja Man Singh’s temples reflect contemporary Mughal taste. The Govind
Deva temple (Plate 34), nearly 80 meters in length, is by far the largest temple
constructed in north India since the thirteenth century. In plan, the temple is
cruciform, recalling many similar temple plans. Continuous horizontal mold-
ings cover the entire elevation of the temple’s exterior, broken only by pillared
apertures on the ground floor and bracketed and pillared oriel windows on the
upper level. The aniconic nature of the temple’s exterior is in keeping with
others, such as his father’s slightly earlier temple at nearby Govardhan. While
the Govind Deva temple’s Sikri sandstone exterior, particularly in its brackets
and pillars, reflects pan-Indian trends, its arcuated, vaulted and domed interior
corridors flanked by elaborate bracketed pillars are very specifically Mughal in
appearance.

Temples exhibiting features commonly associated with Muslim constructed
architecture did not originate with Man Singh. For example, temples with
domes are depicted in paintings executed about 1570, such as those illustrating
the Tuti Nama. On Man Singh’s Govind Deva temple, however, net
pendentives, domes and lengthy barrel-vaults are used to create a sense of open
longitudinal and vertical space unprecedented in Akbari architecture. Thus the
Govind Deva temple does not merely reflect existing Mughal building, but in
many ways anticipates trends yet to develop in imperial Mughal architecture.
The Jagat Shiromani temple in Amber (Plate 35), built about a decade later, is
based on artistic traditions established in Akbar’s capital, Fatehpur Sikri; it is
even more ornate than buildings of the capital. In this manner, Raja Man Singh
can be said to be an innovator of Mughal taste, not simply an imitator.

Raja Man Singh, one of Akbar’s most successful administrators, governed
first the province ( sub a ) of Bihar and then Bengal from 1578 through the early
years of Jahangir’s reign, a period of nearly twenty years. In the hill fort of
Rohtas and at Rajmahal, Raja Man Singh’s capitals respectively of Bihar and
Bengal, he provided buildings that furthered his own image yet represented

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 34. Govind Deva temple, Brindavan

Mughal presence. At Rohtas, Man Singh built by far the most impressive palace
for any governor in the Mughal empire. It was also the largest non-imperial
palace in the entire Mughal empire.

Man Singh’s palace, completed in 1596 according to an inscription over the
main entrance, served both himself and the Mughal empire. The palace,
measuring 200 by 185 meters, is modeled closely on the plan of Fatehpur Sikri.
Like the Fatehpur Sikri palace (Plate 22), Man Singh’s palace at Rohtas can be
divided into administrative and domestic sections. The domestic portions
included hammams , latrines and residential quarters for Man Singh and his
zenana. The administrative section had areas intended for public and private
purposes. The public area included a viewing window for public audience
( jbaroka ) (Plate 3 6) that faces an open quadrangle. This quadrangle for public
audience is a large rectangular area in front of the palace that until now has been
identified as a serai. An elaborate set of buildings, including one traditionally
called a baradari , were probably in the private administrative area of the palace.
Also in this area is a building known as the Private Audience Hall, situated just
behind the public viewing balcony. Both a Public and Private Audience Hall
were necessary so that a governor could enact the sort of court ritual that was
maintained at the distant imperial seat.

Not only does the Rohtas palace recall the general plan and arrangement of
Fatehpur Sikri, but also the style of the palace is very much in keeping with

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 35. Jagat Shiromani temple, Amber

imperial Mughal architecture. The carved brackets on the Private Audience
Hall, for example, recall those of several buildings at Fatehpur Sikri (Plates 28
and 31), and the arcuated forms of the Shish Mahal, part of the zenana, resem-
ble those of the Fatehpur Sikri hammams. In these ways and others, the palace
is the first structure to introduce the courtly style of architecture to eastern
India. Man Singh’s palace thus provides a powerful statement of Mughal
presence, especially effective in showing Mughal authority over local recalci-
trant zamindars, whose forts were crudely constructed.

This imposing site projected more than an image of Mughal presence. It also
projected that of Man Singh himself. He was fully aware of his dual role as
Mughal governor and rank holder ( mansabdar ) on one hand and as raja or
prince in his own right. This we may glean from a large stone slab at the palace

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 3 6.Jharoka, Rohtas palace, Rohtas

entrance gate. It bears two inscriptions, one in Persian and one in Sanskrit. The
one in Persian suggests that Raja Man Singh primarily built the palace as a
servant of Akbar, for it first and most extensively addresses the emperor Akbar
with only brief reference to Raja Man Singh, the actual patron. But in the longer
Sanskrit inscription on the same slab, Akbar’s name is omitted altogether.
Instead the raja is mentioned twice, once even as king of kings, overlord,
suggesting that he, the governor, was supreme monarch.

The grandiloquent title on a palace intended to serve both the governor’s
needs as well as those of the state underscores the dual nature of the relation-
ship between the raja and the Mughal emperor. Under the Mughal state system,
serving the emperor included defending one’s own religion, honor and even
patrimony if necessary . 43 Thus evoking a title which may have symbolized
Rajput ideals and aspirations in itself did not conflict with Man Singh’s role as
Akbar’s governor, for both were part of the integral success of the functioning
Mughal empire. Similarly, the resemblance of the Rohtas palace to Fatehpur
Sikri both recalls the emperor and permits Man Singh to assume the guise of the
ruler that in fact he was. He thus played out his dual role as the emperor’s agent

43 Richards, “Imperial Authority,” 275.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

and raja in his own right, a duality characteristic of the relationship between
Akbar and his lesser authorities.

Even after Man Singh was transferred from the governorship of Bihar he
continued to hold Rohtas and maintained his building program there. Thus his
tenure over Rohtas lasted nearly twenty years, a remarkable span when most
jagirs were changed every few years so that a power base could not be estab-
lished. Man Singh’s long-term tenure at Rohtas reflected his willingness to
invest personal resources in a palace that far surpassed that of any other Mughal
governor.

After rapidly consolidating Mughal authority in Bihar, Raja Man Singh was
transferred to Bengal in 1594 to assume the governorship there. Akbar hoped
that Man Singh’s success in subduing rebels in Bihar might be repeated against
the rebel Afghans, such as the Qaqshal, and zamindars who continued to
challenge Mughal authority in Bengal. In 1 595 Man Singh built a new capital at
a site known today as Rajmahal. The selection of this site for the capital of
Bengal had significance, since here Akbar’s army in 1576 had defeated the last
legitimate Afghan ruler of Bengal, ending over 200 years of independent rule
there. Thus the site of Mughal victory - and Afghan defeat - was memorialized
by a permanent Mughal presence and, as if taking power from victory, the seat
of its government.

Abu al-Fazl reports that in a short time Raja Man Singh constructed “a
choice city” to which the “glorious name” Akbarnagar was given. 44 However,
this name was not so harmoniously bestowed, for originally Man Singh had
named it Rajanagar, after himself and in recognition of his own patronage.
Later, however, he acceded to Akbar’s objection and called it Akbarnagar. 45
This recalls the tension seen in the Rohtas palace inscriptions, suggesting that
while the new capital was intended to serve the needs of the Mughal empire, the
individuality of the governor. Raja Man Singh, was not to be sublimated in the
process.

Among Man Singh’s structures in Rajmahal are a small temple, a bridge and
an enormous Jami c mosque (Plates 37 and 38). The construction of a temple and
utilitarian bridge is not surprising; his patronage of a mosque, too, is not
unusual, for earlier he had built a mosque in Lahore and since 1 590 had main-
tained the shrine of a saint in Hajipur. But none of this would explain the
tremendous size of the Rajmahal Jami c mosque, 77 by 6 5 meters.

This mosque, today partially ruined, is notably not designed in the style
standard since the mid-sixteenth century in eastern India, that is, a single-aisled
three-bayed type. Rather, in plan the Rajmahal Jami c mosque resembles earlier
Mughal Jami c mosques, for example, Babur’s mosque at Panipat (Plate 7). In

44 Akbar Nama, in: 1042-43.

45 Farid Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin, 3 vols. (Karachi, 1961-74), 1: 106.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 37. Jami c mosque, Rajmahal

each, a central corridor is flanked on either side by multi-aisled side
wings. Furthermore, the arrangement of the Rajmahal mosque's end chambers,
otherwise unknown in Bengal, resembles that of Akbar’s Jami c mosque at
Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 24). Other features of the Rajmahal Jami c mosque also
recall the Fatehpur Sikri Jami c mosque (Plate 25), although they are no longer
apparent, but recognizable from an early nineteenth-century drawing. It
indicates that the central barrel-vault was concealed by a high rectangular
pishtaq , faced with bands of contrasting material, following the imperial model.

Thus this imposing mosque, built not in the Bengal tradition but that of the
great Mughal Jami c mosques, was intended as a statement of Mughal presence
in Bengal. Certainly in no other Mughal provincial seat of government during
this period was such an extraordinarily large mosque built, especially remark-
able in this case since Man Singh was a Hindu. In fact, local tradition holds that
Raja Man Singh did not originally intend to construct a mosque, but a temple;
Akbar, however, ordered that a mosque be built since such a structure would
better suit the needs at hand. Man Singh seems to have accepted this order with
enthusiasm, for the size of this mosque is unparalleled in the works of non-
imperial patrons. Its size further may be explained by the chronic difficulties
the Mughals had in subduing Bengal. Using the Rajmahal Jami c mosque as a
symbol of imperial presence in the newly established capital doubtless would

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

have had effect since many of the rebels, themselves ex-Mughal amirs, would
have recognized the allusion to the great mosque at Fatehpur Sikri.

Throughout Raja Man Singh’s career, architectural patronage served varied
and at times even seemingly conflicting purposes. Palaces such as the one at
Rohtas were constructed for his own dwelling, administration and image, but
inevitably they also represented Mughal presence and were built with this in
mind. Similarly, the mosques this Hindu constructed to serve Muslim subjects
represented a visual reminder of imperial presence. Temples were built as
personal gestures in part to commemorate his family and in part to secure
religious merit. It might be argued that the construction of temples elevated
only the patron’s prestige. Nevertheless, the temples, like most architecture
provided by Akbar’s nobles, utilized styles that originated with Akbar’s court
and in essence underscored Akbar’s presence. These buildings further promul-
gated a uniform aesthetic throughout north India. Thus ultimately even the
construction of temples served the state. Just as Akbar was the ultimate head of
state whose authority was diffused through his nobles and others, so artistic
and architectural styles used in the center were disseminated throughout the
domain by these officials, both Hindu and Muslim. The degree of imperial
intervention in construction remains unclear, but such enterprise certainly
served the state and was valued by the emperor. This is apparent from the
second of twelve orders issued upon the accession of Akbar’s successor,
Jahangir. It states that it is the duty of jagirdars (amirs assigned land revenues
in lieu of salary) to provide religious and secular buildings in the hinterlands to
encourage population and stability throughout their domain . 46 This nobles
such as Man Singh already had done - to such an extent and so successfully that
his building activity may have stimulated the order.

No Mughal noble built as widely as did Man Singh. But others built, and did
so with similar motivation. They, too, bolstered their status while at the same
time serving the emperor and through their building activity extended the
Mughal aesthetic into the provinces.

Western India

Nagaur

Akbar realized that subjugation of the princely states in western India was in
the Mughals’ best interests. To do this, the Rajput princes had to be made
Mughal vassals. First, Ajmer and Nagaur, part of the traditional area known as
Marwar, fell to the Mughals shortly after Akbar’s accession. Then major head-
way toward consolidation was achieved when Raja Baramal Kachhwaha of

46 Muhammad Nur al-Din Jahangir,
i: 7-8. Hereafter cited as Tuzuk.

Tuzuk-i Jahangiri , 2 vols., tr. A. Rogers (reprint ed., Delhi, 1968),

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 38. Jami c mosque, Rajmahal

(Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Amber, until recently the princely family of Jaipur, agreed to give his daughter
in marriage to Akbar in 1562, commencing a long-standing relationship of
mutual benefit between these families. By 1570, all the major princely states of
Rajasthan, with the exception of Mewar, acknowledged the Mughals as over-
lord. At the same time, order had to be imposed even on some Mughal nobles.
Such was the case with the landholder of Nagaur, Muhammad Sharaf al-Din
Husain Mirza, who rebelled for reasons never fully explained. He was replaced
in the same year, 1 562, by Husain Quli Khan, already a greatly trusted noble,
who later was appointed governor of the Punjab and awarded the prestigious
title Khan-i Jahan, or Noble of the World.

Husain Quli Khan built in areas where he was posted. His patronage of a
mosque in front of the local raja’s house in the Punjab is known only from
texts. 47 His patronage of a mosque in Nagaur, locally called the Jami c mosque,
is confirmed by an inscription dated 1 564-65, some two years after his appoint-
ment there. This mosque suggests that structures patronized by the Mughal
nobility in the early stages of Akbar’s reign were constructed with some aware-
ness of the imperial tradition, but largely in local idioms and, in all probability,
by local artisans. The mosque, dominating Nagaur’s numerous religious
monuments, is a single-aisled three-bayed structure surmounted by a single
central dome. Towering minarets flanking either end of the east facade make
the structure visible for a considerable distance. While certain features, such as
the mosque’s plan and the deeply recessed tri-partite mihrab, reflect an aware-
ness of architectural forms in contemporary Delhi, then the capital, the mosque
draws heavily on the local architectural traditions of Marwar. For example, the
facade recalls that of the fifteenth-century Shamsi mosque in Nagaur, and the
stone canopied minbar inside this Jami c mosque (Plate 39) recalls those seen
in the Jami c mosques of Mandu and Chanderi, but not on any imperially
sponsored Mughal mosques.

The mosque’s inscription suggests that the building was intended to rep-
resent Mughal authority. It is not on the facade where historical inscriptions are
generally placed, but embedded into the qibla wall, within the minbar. Here the
khutba was delivered, that is, the Friday prayer in which the ruling monarch’s
name was read. This inscription states that the mosque was constructed in the
"reign of the ruler of the age, Akbar,” and likens the building to "the qibla of
deductions and principles.” 48 Thus Husain Quli Khan used the structure as
well as the words of the inscription and its unique location to underscore the
image Akbar had sought to project of himself: the qibla of the state. The
inscription’s verses were carved by Darwish Muhammad al-Hajji, whose pen

47 Samsam al-Daula Shah Nawaz Khan and c Abd al-Hayy, Maasir al-Umara, i vols., tr. H. Beveridge
(reprint ed., Patna, 1979), 1: 647. Hereafter cited as Maasir.

48 A. Chaghtai, “Some Inscriptions from Jodhpur State, Rajputana,” Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica,

1949 - 5 39-

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 39. Minbar, Jami c mosque, Nagaur

name was Ramzi; he executed several other inscriptions on monuments in this
region.

Ajmer

Ajmer especially benefited from imperial interest and intervention. By 1579
Akbar had come on pilgrimage to the dargah of Mu c in al-Din Chishti in Ajmer
fourteen times. During this period, he repaired and enlarged the fort of Ajmer.
Following his lead, nobles built gardens and dwellings for themselves in Ajmer.
They also may have been responsible for the gates of the walled city, including
one embellished with glazed tiles in its spandrels.

The construction of religious structures was encouraged by the new status
that Akbar’s interest in the Chishti sect conferred upon the city; this was
enhanced by imperial decree. Annoyed that Khwaja Husain, the chief
attendant of the Chishti shrine there, was improperly distributing its income,
Akbar issued orders that mosques and khanqahs should be constructed in the
territory, presumably with these funds as well as private ones. The mosque
(Plate 40) situated immediately to the west of the dargah’s south entrance is
almost certainly a product of this order. It probably dates to the early 1570s,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 40. Akbari mosque, Ajmer

shortly after the order was issued. Called the Akbari mosque, the courtyard is
entered through a large gate. The interior walls of the compound today are used
as a madrasa, probably a continuation of their original function.

The mosque is not simply a regional expression; it clearly manifests an
awareness of Timurid-inspired architecture at the center. In fact many believe
the mosque was provided by Akbar himself. Colored stone bands frame the
recessed large entrance arch and its spandrels, recalling Humayun’s near-con-
temporary tomb (Plate 18). A high-arched pishtaq dominates the facade of the
mosque’s prayer chamber and appears a more refined version of the entrance to
Humayun’s Jami c mosque at Kachpura (Plate 12). The prayer chamber’s plan,
too, is based on the Kachpura mosque’s. The east facade bears white marble
inlaid in geometric patterns recalling designs on the Fatehpur Sikri Jami c
mosque. The interior of the mosque, too, reveals an awareness of imperial
trends, for example, the net pendentives that appeared on Humayun’s
Kachpura mosque and the Fatehpur Sikri hammams .

During the years that Akbar made pilgrimage to the shrine of Mu c in al-Din
Chishti, nobles also invested in the city. An inscription dating 1568-69 refers
to the construction of a reservoir by Gesu Khan, in charge of the imperial

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 41. Gate, dargah of Sayyid Husain Khing Sawar, Taragarh, Ajmer

kitchens and an officer in nearby Merta. The reservoir, however, cannot be
identified, since the epigraph is no longer in situ. This inscription was designed
by Darwish Muhammad al-Hajji al-Ramzi, the same calligrapher who designed
the inscription on Husain Quli Khan’s mosque in Nagaur.

He also designed the next known inscription from Ajmer. This epigraph is
located on a towering gateway (Plate 41) marking the entrance to the shrine of
Sayyid Husain Khing Sawar, situated on the fortified hill known as Taragarh
above Mu c in al-Din’s dargah. It attributes the gate’s construction to Isma c il
Quli Khan in 1 570-71. He was the younger brother of Husain Quli Khan, who
had built the Nagaur Jami c mosque some four years earlier.

Sayyid Husain Khing Sawar had been the presiding officer of Ajmer under
Aibek, the first Delhi sultan. He probably was martyred defending the fort in
the early thirteenth century. Contemporary with the great saint, Mu c in al-Din,
Sayyid Husain appears to have become his disciple. But it is only in the Mughal
period that the religious status of Sayyid Husain was enhanced as was that of
Mu c in al-Din. Isma c il Quli Khan’s gate at the foot of this hill, 19.5 meters high
and 5 meters wide, remains the dargah’s dominant feature. Looming above the
architecturally undistinguished structures there, this red sandstone gate, now

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

whitewashed, serves as an entrance to the large interior courtyard that contains
the saint’s tomb. The gate itself is austere; its height, disproportionate to the
narrow width, dominates the shrine. Surmounted by two chattris , the gate is
pierced by a single open entrance whose apex terminates in an exaggerated ogee
point. The use of the ogee arch appears to be a regional characteristic, recalling
similar arches on near-contemporary monuments in nearby Nagaur and Merta.
Regional, too, is the exaggerated height and much of the gate’s form, similar to
the pre-Mughal Buland Darwaza, serving as an entrance to the shrine below. At
least one feature, however, recalls monuments in Delhi, the monumental
rectangular band of Quranic verse framing the entrance. Similar bands of verse
are also on the Sur-period Qal c a-i Kuhna mosque (Plate 5) and the madrasa of
Maham Anga dated 1561.

After 1 579, when Akbar made his last annual pilgrimage to Ajmer, construc-
tion there waned. At the dargahs of Mu c in al-Din and Sayyid Husain Khing
Sawar much had been built during the years of Akbar’s pilgrimage. Among
these is an enclosure around the graves of early Muslim martyrs at Sayyid
Husain’s shrine built in 1 571-72 by Shah Quli Khan, an officer associated with
Ajmer, Narnaul and Nagaur. Also several graves at the shrine of Mu c in al-Din
bear dates before 1 579. Even Khwaja Husain, the very superintendent chastised
by Akbar for mismanaging the dargah’s income, constructed a dome over the
tomb of Mu c in al-Din Chishti in 1579. This may have been provided in
response to Akbar’s orders to build at the shrine and hence an attempt to regain
imperial favor. But after 1579 Ajmer was provided with no new Mughal
buildings until the reign of Jahangir. He revived the public display of devotion
to Mu c in al-Din Chishti, and patronage in the city again increased with
Jahangir’s renewed interest in the shrine.

Baroda and Mandu

Few monuments of Akbar’s time survive in his westernmost domain, Gujarat.
The octagonal tomb of Qutb al-Din Muhammad Khan (d. 1583), who provided
the screens and floor at Shaikh Salim Chishti’s tomb (Plate 26), breaks with the
local regional style. This tomb, in Baroda, is a larger and less refined version of
the type Shah Quli Khan had built about a decade earlier in Narnaul (Plate 43).
Closer to central India, the fortified hill, Mandu, had been embellished with
palaces, mosques and tombs provided by the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Khalji sultans. Mandu was the doorway to the Deccan during the reigns of
Akbar and Jahangir. Akbar visited it four times, while Jahangir stayed in the
fort for about seven months. The Nil Kanth palace, a pleasure pavilion, was
built there in 1 574-75 by Budagh Khan, the officer in charge of Mandu under
Akbar. Water is channelled through the central chamber of this palace to a pool
in the open courtyard below, thus incorporating the landscape as is character-
istic of Mughal architecture. One side of the palace is open and overlooks the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

lush valley below. Inscriptions carved on the palace’s walls record Akbar’s
victories in the Deccan in 1600-01, for Mandu was then used as a camp during
Akbar’s forays into the Deccan.

North India

In the major Mughal cities of north India - Lahore, Delhi, Agra and Allahabad
- mostly imperial monuments remain from Akbar’s reign. In a few places, how-
ever, there are fine sub-imperial monuments. Those buildings show a degree of
independence from imperial forms, even though their architects had absorbed
or in some cases anticipated a sense of Akbar’s imperial aesthetic.

One of these places is Hasan Abdal in Rawalpindi District, Pakistan, where
Raja Man Singh built a terraced four-part garden over a waterfall. Not far from
Hasan Abdal is the tomb of Khwaja Shams al-Din Khwafi, Akbar’s governor
there. 49 The flat-roofed octagonal tomb is pierced by deeply recessed arches
and recalls similarly shaped pleasure pavilions such as the Hada Mahal at
Fatehpur Sikri. Near the tomb is a deep tank fed by underground springs. In its
crystal clear water large fish still swim, suggesting that the tomb building was
originally conceived as a pleasure pavilion.

At Gwalior, the tomb of Muhammad Ghaus (Plate 42) is the most notable
structure of Akbar’s reign. The architecture of this fine stone building antici-
pates trends yet to become popular in Mughal architecture, especially in
eastern India. Muhammad Ghaus, a celebrated saint and well-known writer of
the Shattari order, died in 1 563. His tomb was constructed sometime afterward.
This impressive tomb is a square structure surmounted by a large squat dome
and flanking chattris that give the structure a tiered or multi-storied effect.
Around the walls of the tomb’s central chamber is a continuous veranda
enclosed in turn with screened walls. Such screened verandas derive from the
architecture of Gujarat, for example, the tomb of Bai Harir in Ahmadabad.
This reflects the considerable time Muhammad Ghaus had spent in Gujarat, a
source of importance for Mughal tombs, for example, the tomb of Shaikh Salim
Chishti built in 1580-81 at Fatehpur Sikri. Even through the mid-eighteenth
century, many Mughal tombs including imperial ones continue to be enclosed
by screens, although they often had no roofs.

Narnaul

In Narnaul, today in the state of Haryana, not far from Rajasthan, several
Akbari structures are well preserved. During Akbar’s time, Narnaul was a
district headquarters and mint town in Agra Province. Its location between
Delhi and the Rajput state of Marwar made Narnaul strategically important. It

49 Tuzuky i: 99-100.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 42. Tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, Gwalior

was also an important place of pilgrimage for Hindus, and for Muslims, who
concluded their sojourn at the shrine of a thirteenth-century pir y Shaikh
Muhammad Turk Narnauli. 50 Akbar went to Narnaul to visit the esteemed
contemporary Chishti Shaikh Nizam al-Din, one of the learned men of the
time. 51 The Shaikh died in 1589 and was buried in a square stucco-covered
tomb adhering to the older Lodi style; devotion to the Shaikh’s memory was so
great that in 1622 Ni c mat Allah, otherwise unknown, built a single-aisled three-
bayed mosque facing the tomb. It is beautifully covered with polychromed
arabesques and Quranic inscriptions.

No one constructed more in Narnaul than did Shah Quli Khan. Originally a
protege of Bhairam Khan, the powerful guardian of the young Akbar, Shah
Quli Khan advanced rapidly in the Mughal court. First he rose in imperial favor
when he wounded the Sur general Hemu, preventing the fall of the Mughals
just after Akbar’s accession. By the end of his life, he had been awarded the
highest rank then bestowed on any noble. Renowned for his generosity, Shah
Quli Khan gave large salary advances to his retinue and upon his deathbed in
1601-02 bestowed much money to charity. This later act, however, might be
considered one of shrewdness, for all the property and money of a noble such

50 Ain, 11: 192-93, and c Abd al-Haqq Muhaddis Deh\av[,Akbhar al-Akhiyar(Deoba.nd, n.d.), pp. 53-54.

51 Akbar Nama, 111: 321; Ain, 1: 607; al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh, in: 44-45.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 43. Tomb of Shah Quli Khan, Narnaul

as Shah Quli Khan, who had no immediate heirs, returned to the state upon his
death.

Shah Quli Khan’s architecture in Narnaul was of a personal sort, rather
different from the enclosure he had built at the Taragarh shrine. His patronage
of the Narnaul monuments was considered remarkable enough by his contem-
poraries that these works are mentioned in Mughal-period texts. 52 Shah Quli
Khan’s first architectural project in Narnaul, his tomb (Plate 43), is dated
1 574-75, three years after his enclosure at the Taragarh shrine. A multi-storied
arched gateway, built fourteen years after the tomb, serves as the entrance to
the tomb’s walled garden compound. The tomb is a small octagonal structure
faced with red and gray contrasting stones and surmounted by a white dome.
While the contrasting stones closely resemble those used on the nearby tomb
of Sher Shah’s grandfather, the tomb’s octagonal plan is very different from the
octagonal type constructed by the Lodi and Sur kings. That type had consisted
of an eight-sided veranda encircling a central chamber. Shah Quli Khan’s tomb,
however, has no veranda and more closely resembles the cylindrical octagonal

52 Maasir , in: 776; Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin, 1: 18 1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

pavilion known as the Sher Mandal (Plate n) in Delhi's Purana Qal c a and the
so-called Hada Mahal, a pleasure pavilion situated near the lake at Fatehpur
Sikri, both inspired by Iranian pleasure pavilions. That Shah Quli Khan’s tomb
resembles a pleasure pavilion is appropriate. The building, constructed some
twenty-five years before Shah Quli Khan’s death, was situated in a large
planned garden and was used in his life as part of his residential estate.

Variations of this octagonal tomb-type are widely used in north India. For
example, Shamsher Khan’s elegantly painted tomb in Batala constructed in
1589-90 is similar, as are the undated octagonal tombs in Bahlolpur, said to be
those of Bahadur Shah and Husain Shah. A similar structure, the tomb dated
1612-13 built in Nakodar for Mumin Husaini (Plate 78), a musician at the court
of the Khan-i Khanan, a high-ranking noble under Akbar and Jahangir,
indicates the continuing popularity of this type later in the Mughal period.

Some fifteen years after he built his tomb, Shah Quli Khan constructed
nearby a second gateway situated on the northern edge of a large square tank.
It opens to an arched causeway that leads to a pleasure pavilion (Plate 44) situ-
ated in the tank’s center. The tank and pavilion were commenced in 1590-91
and completed two years later. Inscriptions here show that paradisical imagery
continues to be a trademark of Mughal architecture, for the tank in which the
tomb sits is called a “second Kausar” (a pool in paradise) and its water “the
water of immortality”; 53 in addition, both the pavilion itself and Shah Quli’s
tomb are equated with paradise. While such inscriptions often praise the
patron, their flattery is usually very general. Here, however, specific reference
is made to the patron’s heroism of nearly fifty years earlier, when he defeated
the Sur general Hemu, thus saving Mughal hegemony. Shah Quli Khan is called
“the honor of the country . . . who carried away the ball of valor from his
rivals.” 54

Shah Quli Khan’s pavilion, locally known as the Jal Mahal or Water Palace,
resembles various imperial structures in its individual parts; in combination, it
resembles no single one, but combines these features in an innovative fashion.
For example, the pavilion’s location in the midst of a tank recalls water
pavilions at Fatehpur Sikri that sat on the edge of a lake, although both the
Hada Mahal and Qush Khana there are octagonal. The chattris of the super-
structure recall another building at Fatehpur Sikri, the so-called Diwan-i
Khass. Such multiple chattris on flat roofs were typical of domestic architec-
ture, as contemporary illustrations show. This pavilion, then, probably draws
inspiration from buildings at Fatehpur Sikri, and in turn it served as a model for
a similar pavilion in Bairat (Jaipur District). That pavilion, dated about a decade
later than the Jal Mahal and attributed to Raja Man Singh, was also set in water.

53 G. Yazdani, “Narnaul and its Buildings,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, iii, 1907, 642.

54 Yazdani, “Narnaul,” 642.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 44. Shah Quli Khan’s pavilion, today known as the Jal Mahal, Narnaul

Other tombs constructed by amirs of Akbar’s time also adhere to no single
architectural form, even though their individual components are commonly
rendered in evident Mughal style. That is the case, for example, with the tomb
of Mirza Muzaffar Husain (d. 1603) in Delhi, known locally as the Bara
Batashewala Mahal. This is a flat-roofed structure once probably surmounted
by a textile canopy. Its ground floor, like that of the Jal Mahal and Humayun’s
tomb, has a central chamber surrounded by eight smaller rooms. This type of
plan is derived from Iranian prototypes. Perhaps it is no accident that the Bara
Batashewala Mahal is situated just outside the walls of Humayun’s tomb.
Another type, this one rooted in the earlier Sultanate architectural tradition,
simply consists of a single chattri on a raised plinth. At times, this type includes
a wall mosque and a small entrance gate, as in the case of the tomb of Miyan
Raib, dated 1 594, in Jhajjar (Haryana). This is not the first Mughal tomb of this
older type; the tomb of Saqi Sultan (Plate 45) in Rohtas fort, Bihar, dated
1 579-80, is similar.

Eastern India

Mughal authority was imposed with difficulty on eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Bengal, and Orissa. When the Mughals were attempting to consolidate their
power in areas closer to Delhi and Agra, Afghan clans and nobles reasserted

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 45. Tomb of Saqi Sultan, Rohtas

themselves in eastern India. Slowly, however, this region fell to the Mughals.
Eastern Uttar Pradesh came under Mughal control early in Akbar’s reign; the
Gangetic valley of Bihar was tentatively taken by Akbar in 1 574. It was secured
by him after a serious uprising in 1580 instigated by a number of dissatisfied
Mughal amirs and Afghans under the leadership of Ma c sum Khan Kabuli; then
this territory, as well as much of Orissa, was successfully incorporated into the
Mughal domain. While Bengal was claimed by Akbar in 1575, Mughal
consolidation there was not fully achieved until Jahangir’s reign. This
prolonged effort to assert Mughal authority in eastern India was accompanied
by vigorous architectural construction on the part of Mughal governors
and other officials, an attempt to underscore a permanent Mughal presence
there.

Jaunpur and Chunar

Jaunpur, some 40 km north of Benares, also known as Varanasi, had been a
leading intellectual center in northern India during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. Until Akbar’s forces took Patna and other territory in the
Bihar Gangetic valley, Jaunpur remained the most important eastern seat of the
Mughal empire. In 1 567, Akbar appointed Khan-i Khanan Muhammad
Mun c im Khan, a noble faithful since the days of Humayun, as governor there.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB -IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 4 6. Mun c im Khan's bridge, Jaunpur

His tenure in Jaunpur and the extensive surrounding territory, including the
stronghold of Chunar, lasted until his death in 1575. Instrumental in Mughal
expansion to the east, Mun c im Khan was considered one of Akbar’s most loyal
nobles.

He extensively refurbished the city of Jaunpur, which had been ravaged by
the Lodis. Among his works there is a bridge and additions to the older fort.
Tradition records that he also constructed mosques throughout the city.
Epigraphic evidence, however, indicates these were built by others, suggesting
that Mun c im Khan’s own patronage served as a stimulus for nobles directly
responsible to him.

Mun c im Khan’s bridge (Plate 4 6), still used today, is generally recognized as
Jaunpur’s most significant Mughal structure. One Mughal writer states that
although the Khan-i Khanan had no heirs, his descendant, the Jaunpur bridge,
“will preserve his name for ages.” 55 It consists of ten arched openings
supported on massive pylons; chattris line either side of the top. The six inscrip-
tions on the bridge indicate that it was commenced in 1564-65 and completed
in 1 568-69. A Persian history of Jaunpur states that Mun c im Khan constructed
the bridge in response to a discourse by Akbar in which he, hearing a widow

35 Maasir , 11: 291.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

complain about the lack of ferry service across the Gumpti, proclaimed that it
is better to provide public works than religious edifices. 56 The story is probably
apocryphal, but it suggests that just as amirs in Ajmer built in response to
Akbar’s decree, so here, too, the Khan-i Khanan’s architectural patronage was
inspired by the ruler himself.

The fort walls were constructed earlier, but the massive eastern gate is
generally ascribed to Mun c im Khan’s patronage. It is embellished with blue and
yellow tiles similar to those on contemporary buildings of the independent
sultans of Bengal. So also a palace known as the Chehil Sutun was probably his
product. While traditionally the palace is said to have been built in the
fourteenth century, early nineteenth-century drawings indicate that this
administrative or residential structure was constructed in a typical Akbari
idiom. These drawings of the now demolished palace suggest the early intro-
duction of an imperial style in these eastern hinterlands. The ground floor of
this square double-storied structure is encompassed by a pillared veranda or
aiwan ; the whole is surmounted by a large pillared chattri. While no specific
remaining structure at the Agra fort or Fatehpur Sikri can be cited as the model,
the Jaunpur palace captures the flavor of contemporary imperial architecture.
In turn, it may have been instrumental in the design of the palace Raja Man
Singh constructed in the Rohtas fort about twenty years later, when he served
as Akbar’s governor of Bihar.

Near the site of the Chehil Sutun is a domed and vaulted multi-chambered
hammam (Plate 47) that closely resembles the baths of Fatehpur Sikri. This
Jaunpur bath, with its carefully planned arrangements for hot and cold water,
is a rare example of an intact provincial bath. Since the hammam appears not
to have been introduced to India until the Mughal period, its presence in the
easternmost hinterlands early in Akbar’s reign is indicative of the rapid spread
of technology and style.

Although the Jaunpur fort served as the governor’s residence early in
Akbar’s reign, two forts were defensively more important: the fort of Chunar,
acquired by Akbar in 1561, and the fort of Allahabad, constructed in 1580.
Eventually as the Mughals increased their landholdings further to the east, as
far as modern Bangladesh, Jaunpur’s significance was overshadowed.

Possession of the Chunar fortress long had been considered pivotal to the
ultimate control of eastern India, for it guarded both the Ganges and the major
land routes. Humayun held the fort briefly, but it was recaptured by the Surs.
It was ceded to other Afghans, who held it until 1561, when they joined the
Mughal ranks. Abu al-Fazl, discussing Chunar’s importance, called its
acquisition by Akbar one of the important events of that year. In 1 5 66 Akbar

A. Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur , Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series,
Vol. xi (reprint ed.; Varanasi, 1970). d. 20.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 47. Hammam , Jaunpur

visited the fort personally, but in describing that visit Abu al-Fazl neglected to
note the fort’s appearance. However, its present appearance suggests that much
of it was constructed in Akbar’s reign. Chunar’s stone quarries, famous since
Maurya times, provided abundant stone and skilled masons. Thus, the task of
rebuilding the fort was relatively simple.

The fort’s west gate is its only inscribed structure. It bears four Persian
epigraphs indicating that the gate was built during the reign of Akbar in
1 573-74 by Muhammad Sharif Khan. 57 His identity has not yet been
established, although he may have been the son of c Abd al-Samad, the
famous painter. Muhammad Sharif probably served under Mun c im Khan,
who had been granted Chunar and a great deal of surrounding territory as
income-yielding land in 1567. 58 Mun c im Khan held Chunar until his death in

1 575,59

This gate bears little ornamentation other than the beautifully executed
calligraphic slabs. The fort’s other gates, by contrast, have intricately carved
panels and brackets (Plate 48). Such carving in general fits well with contem-
porary trends. For example, the S-shaped brackets of the oriel windows on
some of these gates more closely resemble work in Agra than any pre-Mughal
monuments in eastern India. However, some of the designs, for example a con-
tinuous knot motif, are closer to work on Sur-period architecture in Chainpur
and Sher Shah’s fortress at Shergarh, both some 60 to 75 km east of Chunar,
than they are to the Mughal material. This suggests not only a reliance on local
artisans, but also a continuation of some regional traditions.

57 One of these inscriptions is mentioned briefly in ARIE , 1970-71, 138, but the patron’s name is
omitted.

58 al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh> 11: 104.

59 Akbar Nama , in: 223. Chunar was then given to Rai Sardan.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 48. Gate, Chunar fort, Chunar

Bihar

In Bihar province, today roughly corresponding to the northern and central
portions of Bihar state, by far the most important work of Akbar’s time was in
the hill fort of Rohtas. In 1576 Akbar’s troops captured Rohtas from rebel
Afghan forces and used the hill fort, some 45 km in circumference, as a garri-
son pivotal in controlling the rest of eastern India.

Although Rohtas had served as an important fort under the Sur dynasty, the
Mughals developed a different portion of the fort. The palace at Rohtas that
Raja Man Singh built was discussed earlier in this chapter, but it was not the
first Mughal building in the fort. A mosque (Plate 49) had been built in 1578,
only two years after the fort became Mughal. This was the first Mughal monu-
ment in all Bihar province. Built by an Akbar loyalist, Habash Khan, who died
defending Rohtas against renegade Mughal amirs and Afghan rebels, the
mosque is similar in appearance to the Jami c mosque constructed on the hill
thirty-five years earlier by Haibat Khan, one of Sher Shah Sur’s leading
generals. Both adhere to a single-aisled three-bayed rectangular plan. Differ-
ences are slight. The central pishtaq of the Mughal mosque is lower, and its
facade bears intricately carved panels, recalling similar work on a gate at the
Chunar fort. Although the Mughal mosque resembles the earlier Afghan one,

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 49. Mosque of Habash Khan, Rohtas

situated about 3 km away, it bears an inscription over the central entrance arch
that might be interpreted as a poignant statement of Mughal supremacy. Open-
ing with the Quranic phrase, “With God’s help victory is imminent,” most of
this Persian inscription refers to Akbar’s victories and concludes with an
appeal, in Arabic, to “deliver this good news to believers.” 60 Considering the
shaky political situation at this time, the inscription can be interpreted as a
proclamation of Mughal authority over rebels in Bihar.

A single mosque is not enough to suggest an urban setting. There were,
however, other Akbari structures on the hill which indicate the presence of a
permanent and continuous large population. By far the largest and most
important of these is the palace of Raja Man Singh, discussed earlier.
Numerous smaller buildings, mostly tombs, remain in the vicinity of the palace
and Habash Khan’s mosque. Among these are a chattri and wall mosque
serving as the tomb of Saqi Sultan (Plate 45), who died in 1579-80, before he
could attain the title khan, which he greatly coveted. 61 Further testimony to the
fort’s large population is a service town at the foot of the hill. It was - and still
is - called Akbarpur, after the then-ruling monarch. Thus, although relatively

60 Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Corpus of Arabic and Persian Inscriptions of Bihar (Patna, 1973), p. 164.

61 Ahmad, Inscriptions of Bihar , pp. 166-67.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

inaccessible and strongly fortified, Rohtas appears to have functioned as a
major urban center as long as it remained a significant administrative center.
During the latter part of Akbar’s reign, Rohtas fort operated in much the same
manner as his completely planned city-palace of Fatehpur Sikri. That is, it was
the symbolic seat of the head of state, here the Mughal governor of Bihar, who
was the official representative of Mughal authority. But here, even more than
at Fatehpur Sikri, the commercial and agrarian components largely were aimed
at serving the immediate city.

While Rohtas was an important military headquarters, it was the cities of
Hajipur, Patna and Munger, situated on the Ganges, as well as Bihar Sharif, the
traditional administrative center of Bihar and long a site of tremendous
religious importance, that were the major urban settlements. Inscriptions
indicate Akbar-period building activity in all of them except Patna. This is
ironic, for Patna was very large, even containing the mint for Bihar Province,
and except during Man Singh’s governorship it was the leading administrative
center.

Hajipur, situated at the confluence of the Gandak and Ganges, across from
Patna, was considered the key to north Bihar. The city had been the land-
holding of Sa c id Khan, who on three separate occasions served as governor of
Bihar. Here in 1586-87, during Sa c id Khan’s first period of governorship, his
brother Makhsus Khan built a mosque, the second known Mughal mosque in
Bihar. Although the mosque’s facade and entrance gate were seriously damaged
in the 1934 earthquake, the original layout is intact, and the interior (Plate 50)
appears little changed. The mosque’s adherence to older Afghan style mosques
as well as its Bengali forms, for example, the minbar and curved cornice of the
entrance gate, suggest a reliance on local designers. The link with Bengal in par-
ticular is not surprising since Hajipur, often in Bengali hands, was an important
naval headquarters under the pre-Mughal Husain Shahi dynasty. Thus in
Bihar, except for Raja Man Singh’s outstanding patronage, architectural design
remained conservative.

Bengal

Until 1575 Bengal was under the control of various Afghan houses. Then
Akbar’s troops brought Bengal into the Mughal empire. Subsequently several
revolts against Akbar’s authority were staged by renegade nobles of the
Mughal camp. Ironically, during this chaotic period, a Mughal style of archi-
tecture was introduced by the rebels.

Bengali Islamic architecture had a marked regional character. It was founded
on a well-established Islamic style in Bengal illustrated by several monuments
constructed on the eve of Mughal authority there. Among these are the double-
aisled six-domed mosque of Kusumba built in 1558-59, and the square-plan
single-domed tomb of Pir Bahram in Burdwan dated 1562-63. The former is

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 50. Interior, Makhsus Khan’s mosque, known also as the Jami c mosque, Hajipur

stone-faced, while the latter is brick-constructed, and both, like most pre-
Mughal architecture of Islamic Bengal, have a prominent curved cornice. Their
plan and elevation - even the ornamental brick - reflect forms that were at the
time several centuries old. From this foundation, the Mughal style of Bengal
evolves.

Only five years after the establishment of Mughal authority in Bengal, and
before any known Mughal building had been erected there, Afghan chiefs
revolted against Mughal authority and assumed power. The Afghan Ma c sum
Khan Kabuli, a renegade Mughal noble, declared himself ruler of Bengal, even
though the imperial Mughals maintained nominal control. By 1581 Ma c sum
Khan Kabuli had assumed the title of sultan, as indicated by an inscription on
the first surviving Mughal monument in Bengal, the Jami c mosque at
Chatmohar (Pabna District). About one year later, in 1582, two mosques were
constructed, each reflecting divergent stylistic traditions. The Qutb Shahi
mosque of 1 582-83 in Pandua, built by Makhdum Shaikh in honor of the long-
deceased but deeply revered saint, Nur Qutb c Alam, adheres to a plan popular
in Bengal since the fourteenth century. This stone-faced mosque is divided into
two aisles of five bays each. Not only is it constructed in the traditional Bengali

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

style, but also the inscription is in Arabic, the language of most pre-Mughal
inscriptions in Bengal. 62 This is the last stone-faced mosque built in Bengal
until the twentieth century, and it is the last small double-aisled rectangular
mosque constructed in Bengal until the nineteenth century. A different trend is
represented by the single-aisled, three-bayed plan of the Kherua mosque in
Sherpur (Bogra District), also built in 1582 (Plate 51). Its patron was Murad
Khan, son of Jauhar c Ali Khan Qaqshal. The Qaqshal were an Afghan
tribe that, along with other Afghan groups who followed Ma c sum Khan
Kabuli, sought to oust the Mughals from Bengal. Sherpur, the city in which
the mosque is situated, served as the rebel headquarters. Ironically, however, it
was this mosque-type that became standard in Mughal and post-Mughal
Bengal.

The Kherua mosque’s single-aisled, three-bayed plan recalls not only north
Indian types but also that of Habash Khan’s mosque of 1578 built in Rohtas
(Plate 49). While Bengali features remain, such as the brick construction,
curved cornice and engaged ribbed corner turrets, the plan is a departure from
that of traditional Bengali mosques. This may be attributed to the fact that the
ruler, Ma c sum Khan Kabuli, and many of his rebel followers who had served
earlier in Bihar under the Mughals, were familiar with north Indian forms, as
well as with the mosques in the great stronghold of Rohtas. When serving the
Mughals they had assisted with the fort’s initial takeover and later tried to
capture Rohtas for themselves.

Older Hindu sculptures were imbedded in the mosque’s east facade, leaving
only the back visible; that part was carved with a Persian inscription. Reuse of
Hindu materials in such a prominent fashion is rare in Bengal after the four-
teenth century; the Qaqshal rebels were probably cut off from sources of
freshly quarried stone, which would have been used for an inscription on a
brick monument, and so had to rely on available materials. This, as much as
desecration of a Hindu shrine, probably explains the images’ use. Both
epigraphs are written in Persian, the lingua franca of the Mughal court, rather
than Arabic, more common in Bengal. This is yet another indication that
Bengali architecture was moving closer to a pan-Indian idiom whose standards
were established at imperial centers. Because of their former association with
the Mughal court, the Qaqshal, now rebels, were nevertheless planting the
seeds in Bengal of an architectural vocabulary that would become standard
throughout the subcontinent from the seventeenth century on.

While the language of the inscriptions is characteristic of Mughal epigraphs,
the content of these inscriptions is unusual. 63 However, it is perhaps apt for a
mosque constructed by rebels. The inscription, still in situ , recounts the story

62 Shamsud-Din Ahmed, Inscriptions of Bengal , iv (Rajshahi, i960), pp. 256-58.

63 Ahmed, Inscriptions of Bengal , pp. 261-66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 51. Murad Khan Qaqshal’s mosque, today known as the Kherua mosque,

Sherpur

of two pigeons from Mecca, a metaphor for the rebel Qaqshal, who request
from a faqir shelter for themselves and for their friends. The faqir grants the
permission but states that the mosque is small and will not shelter them from
violence. In response, the pigeons say that God’s wrath would be great if the
mosque or pigeons were harmed. The second inscription, no longer in situ ,
also admonishes protection of the mosque. Such a plea for protection is appro-
priate to the world of rebels and appears to have been taken seriously, for the
mosque remains in excellent preservation. The otherwise unknown Nawab
Mirza Murad Khan Qaqshal thus should be remembered for erecting the first
known Bengali mosque of a type that was to become popular throughout
Bengal.

Elsewhere in Bengal, architectural activity in Akbar’s time was confined
largely to Rajmahal, the capital, where Raja Man Singh was active; his Mughal-
style architecture is discussed earlier in this chapter. However, in Malda, a large
trade city that benefited from the prosperity of the important shrines in nearby
Pandua, a Jami c mosque (Plate 52) was erected in 1595-96, shortly after Raja
Man Singh assumed the governorship of Bengal. This was a period when the
Mughals began to have some effect in quelling the dissident rebel forces. In the
mosque’s inscription, neither the patron nor ruling monarch is recorded. It

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

Plate 52. Jami c mosque, Malda

does, however, identify the mosque's location as in “Hind,” 64 an area roughly
corresponding with north India. This reveals identity with the territory then
ruled by the Mughals, not just Bengal.

The Malda Jami c mosque shows an increasing adoption of north Indian
forms. The interior gives a sense of open space rarely seen in Bengali rectangu-
lar mosques, but common in north Indian examples. The central vaulted
corridor is derived from Bengali prototypes, for example the Adina and
Gunmant mosques, while north Indian influence is seen in the single-aisled
plan. The mosque's ornamentation, too, shows a heightened awareness of
north Indian models, for both the facade and interior are largely plastered with
a smooth stucco veneer reminiscent, for example, of Humayun’s mosque in
Kachpura (Plate 12).

The construction of this large mosque suggests the continued economic
importance of Malda, despite political turmoil. This is not surprising, for urban
centers not wholly created as political centers tend to survive administrative
changes, wars and even natural calamity.

The most notable Mughal monument in Malda is a tower known today as the
Nim Serai Minar (Plate 53). Located across the river from the mosque, this

64 Ahmed, Inscriptions of Bengal , pp. 258-59.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 53. Nim Serai Minar, Malda

minaret or tower is aligned with the Jami c mosque’s qibla wall, the west-facing
one. Its name, meaning half, suggests a location between Gaur and Pandua and
indicates that it probably served as a mile marker, as did the similar tower at
Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 27). The location of this tower, on a hill overlooking the
confluence of two rivers, at that time major transport routes, suggests that it
also may have served as a watch tower.

The tower’s facade is covered with stone projections resembling elephant
tusks, similar to those on the tower at Fatehpur Sikri. Overall, the Malda
tower’s form recalls the earlier Chor Minar in Delhi, used to display the heads
of thieves. It is thus possible that the Malda tower was constructed when
Mughal governors in Bengal were subduing rebel forces and here displayed
rebel heads, a custom earlier practiced by the Mughal forebear, Timur. Later
than this, during the rebel prince Shah Jahan’s bid for the throne in 1625, the
heads of some 430 traitors were reportedly on display at Akbarnagar, that is,
Rajmahal. In addition, Peter Mundy, traveling through the Mughal empire in
1631, makes references to numerous minarets or towers displaying the heads of
executed thieves, noting that these were to be found near important cities. The

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

THE AGE OF AKBAR

location of the Malda tower, aligned with a mosque inscribed as being situated
in greater India, not just Bengal, makes the possibility of this tower serving as
a symbol of strong Mughal presence in this trade town all the more likely.

CONCLUSION

During Akbar’s reign imperially sponsored architecture incorporates Timurid
design concepts with forms, motifs and building techniques long indigenous to
Indian architecture. Many of the resulting buildings, for example much of the
palace at Fatehpur Sikri, are highly refined products of prevailing Indian tastes,
although the organization and spatial arrangements owe much to Timurid
concepts. Akbar, like Humayun, was little involved with religious architecture
with the exception of the great khanqah at Fatehpur Sikri. He built primarily
forts and palaces, building types that reflect his concept of the Mughal state.
The function of many parts of his palaces is often impossible to determine,
reflecting the fluid nature of court ceremony in Akbar’s reign. This, as we shall
see, contrasts with palaces built under subsequent rulers. Akbar also continued
to build char haghs , initially introduced to India by Babur. The tomb he built
for his father, Humayun, is the first to be set in such a garden. Such funereal
settings, evoking visions of paradise, commences what will become a long-
standing Mughal architectural concern.

Akbar built primarily at his capitals and also defensively at the major cities
on the frontier of his domain, such as Allahabad. But Mughal architecture was
not confined to these places; rather, it expanded to the hinterlands. There,
though, the architecture was built not by the emperor but by his nobles, whose
taste most often echoed that of the center. In this expanding Mughal empire,
architecture increasingly served as a symbol of Mughal presence.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 4

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF

TRANSITION

Upon the death of Akbar in 1605, Muhammad Sultan Salim assumed the
imperial throne. He took the title Nur al-Din Muhammad Jahangir Badshah
Ghazi, hence the name Jahangir by which he is most commonly known. It is
generally believed that during Jahangir’s 22-year reign, half as long as Akbar’s,
patronage for buildings declined because of his enthusiasm for painting.
Further, common belief credits Jahangir’s influential wife, Nur Jahan, a leading
taste setter of the time, with stimulating the construction of buildings later in
the emperor’s reign. Her role as patron cannot be denied, but Jahangir
continually refers in his own memoirs to his patronage of tombs, pleasure
pavilions, forts and gardens as well as to the restoration of older structures. In
fact, Jahangir in his memoirs refers more often to architecture he found
pleasing or to buildings he ordered than to paintings he commissioned, even
though he is regarded as a great connoisseur of painting. During Jahangir’s
reign the realm was secure. Thus the nobles were encouraged to embellish
cities, construct serais, gardens and dwellings and endow shrines - all concrete
manifestations of a prosperous state.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Salim was the name given to Jahangir by his father, Akbar, in honor of Salim,
the Chishti saint of Fatehpur Sikri who had predicted his birth. He was Akbar’s
oldest son and heir-apparent. Akbar gave the young prince an education befit-
ting his rank. The leading nobles and scholars such as the great litterateur,
Khan-i Khanan c Abd al-Rahim, and the leading theologian. Shaikh c Abd
al-Nabi, were charged with responsibility for educating the future emperor.
Well versed in Persian and Hindi and with a respectable knowledge of Turki,
Prince Salim also possessed a good grounding in history, the natural sciences,
geography, martial skills and theology - all part of the traditional Islamic
curriculum considered appropriate for a prince. But more than this formal
education, his innate sense of observation, inherited from his great-
grandfather, Babur, coupled with his extraordinary taste for the exquisite and
the unusual made him a remarkable connoisseur of art, rare animals and birds,
as well as jewels. His ability to discern the beauty of objects and animals never
waned, while his treatment of fellow humans vacillated between cruelty and
sensitive tenderness.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Before Salim ascended the throne and assumed the title Jahangir, his two
brothers had died prematurely, reputedly from drink, one in 1 599 and the other
in 1604. Nevertheless, his accession was not without issue. Eager to obtain the
throne, Salim revolted in 1600 and established his own court in Akbar’s
Allahabad fort. Salim struck coins in his own name and assumed imperial titles.
Akbar thus sought to consult his confidant and biographer, Abu al-Fazl, then
in the Deccan. Salim, however, had him assassinated in 1602. While Salim's
revolt did not shake the stability of Akbar’s empire, it did shape future events.
Several of the most prominent courtiers urged Akbar to skip a generation by
designating Khusrau, Salim’s oldest son, as his successor. As a result, a
tremendous rift occurred between the two princes, father and son, each
aspiring to the throne.

Finally, late in 1604 Akbar marched toward Allahabad, but turned back to
Agra upon hearing that his mother, Maryam Makhani, had died. After Akbar’s
return to Agra, Salim followed, probably eager to curtail the elevation of his
son, Khusrau, to heir-apparent. Salim and Akbar were more or less reconciled,
and the scheme to designate Khusrau as heir failed. On his death-bed in 1605,
Akbar designated Salim as his successor. 1

Salim, who began writing his memoirs at the time of his accession, explains
that he took the title Jahangir, or World Seizer, since it was the business of
kings to control the world; the title Nur al-Din, or Light of the Faith, was
appropriate since his accession “coincided with the rising and shining on the
earth of the great light, the Sun.” 2 The assumption of this title is particularly
noteworthy, for it indicates, among much other evidence, that the importance
of light and light-imagery under Akbar continued under Jahangir. For example,
light imagery is also apparent in painting commissioned by Jahangir, especially
in his allegorical portraits, as well as in imperial funereal architecture. Abu al-Fazl
had developed the notion of light imagery associated with the emperor’s semi-
divine status. How ironic, then, that Jahangir, responsible for Abu al-Fazl’s
brutal murder, made extensive use of light imagery in his writing and art.

Mughal ties with the Chishti saints, maintained by Akbar until 1579, were
revived by Jahangir. The emperor’s memoirs open with an account of Akbar’s
journey on foot to the great Chishti shrine in Ajmer and Shaikh Salim’s
prophecy of the birth of a son. Subsequently in his memoirs, Jahangir recalls
that early in his childhood the dying Shaikh Salim had placed his turban on the
young prince’s head, saying that the prince would be his spiritual successor.
Jahangir enacts this role by endowing the Chishti shrines when on pilgrimage.
Such patronage must be viewed as an attempt to link Mughal rule to a spiritual
source, specifically the one that once had guided his father. It is also motivated

1 Husaini Kamgar, Maasir-i Jahangiri , ed. A. Alavi (Delhi, 1978), p. 53.

2 Tuzuk , 1: 2-3.

IOO

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

by personal piety, but the renewed Chishti link in no way suggests increased
orthodoxy in official policy.

Military campaigns were relatively unimportant in the reign of Jahangir.
Happy to reside in Akbar’s largely consolidated empire, Jahangir waged few
offensive campaigns. His major victories included the defeat of Rana Amar
Singh of Mewar, a campaign brilliantly conducted by Prince Khurram, the
future Shah Jahan. This victory was commemorated by the construction of a
palace at Pushkar. Jahangir’s troops also captured the Kangra fort, and they
consolidated Mughal rule in Bengal and Assam. Other campaigns were less
successful. During all of them Jahangir remained far from the action.

The course of Jahangir’s reign was changed by his marriage in 161 1 to Mehr
al-Nisa, the widow of Sher Afghan, a Mughal noble. Although he had other
wives, she was brilliant and by far the most powerful of them all. She was first
given the title Nur Mahal (Light of the Palace) and later, in 161 6, Nur Jahan
(Light of the World), the name by which she is best known. Born of Iranian
parents, Nur Jahan together with her father, Ltimad al-Daula, and her brother,
Asaf Khan, assumed increasing power. By 1622, when Jahangir’s poor health,
exacerbated by immoderate consumption of wine and opium, rendered him
incapable of attending to the affairs of state, Nur Jahan’s power was nearly
absolute.

Until this time, both Jahangir and Nur Jahan considered Khurram, the future
Shah Jahan, to be Jahangir’s heir. However, upon the marriage of Nur Jahan’s
daughter from her first marriage to Prince Shahriyar, Jahangir’s son by another
wife, the empress no longer supported Khurram, but actively championed
Shahriyar’s cause. This, in part, led to a rebellion on the part of Khurram, which
resulted in his seizure of Bihar and Bengal and ultimately the loss of Qandahar
for the Mughals. Jahangir died in 1627. Nur Jahan’s schemes failed, and
although she survived her husband for eighteen years, she wielded no more
power in the Mughal court.

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

The establishment of authority (c. 1600-10)

In 1600, Prince Salim established his own court in Akbar’s Allahabad fort.
Assuming the title Shah Salim, he operated as an independent ruler but did
little to upset Mughal authority much beyond Allahabad. The rebel prince’s
patronage of painters, especially Aqa Reza, is well known, but there is no
evidence that he constructed buildings during this period. The self-styled king,
rather, commissioned smaller objects that he himself might use. In 1602-03
Shah Salim ordered construction of a black throne (Plate 54), essentially a large
polished slab whose sides were engraved with verses praising the throne and its
occupant, Shah Salim. While no calligrapher’s name is given, the lettering and

101

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

sinuous floral background indicate the work of Mir c Abd Allah Mushkin
Qalam. 3 Even five years after he became emperor, this throne continued to hold
significance for Jahangir; he ordered that it be brought from Allahabad to the
Agra fort and then added verses to those already on the throne. These new
verses, crowded under the original composition, state Jahangir’s rightful claim
to the throne.

Just after his coronation, Jahangir commissioned a verse in honor of his
accession. Composed and designed by Muhammad Ma c sum of Bakkar, a
renowned calligrapher of Akbar’s reign, it was carved on the Delhi gate of
Akbar’s Agra fort. The verse itself is a hopeful portent for Jahangir’s long and
successful rule; its location, under an inscription of Akbar, links Jahangir to his
father and further underscores the concept of his rightful claim to kingship.

Like all the Mughal emperors, Jahangir was proud of his Timurid heritage.
This is made apparent by a monument that attracted Jahangir’s support on the
eve of his accession - a Maurya-period (third century b.c.) monolithic column
that long had been lying on the ground of Akbar’s Allahabad fort. Jahangir
re-erected it, as indicated in a Persian epigraph written on the shaft by Mir c Abd
Allah Mushkin Qalam, between 15 August and 13 September, 1605, several
months before Jahangir’s coronation. This inscription gives Jahangir’s entire
lineage down to Timur; the names of God are interspersed with those of his
ancestors, underscoring the Mughal notion that kings are divinely chosen. This
text was added to other inscriptions on the column, including edicts of the
famous Maurya emperor, Ashoka. Thus, in a sense, he continued his father’s
long-standing policy of linking Mughal rule to both the Timurid tradition and
to deeply rooted Indian traditions.

In 1607 Jahangir entered Kabul and there visited Babur’s gardens. Between
two of the gardens he ordered the erection of a large white stone slab. There he
had inscribed his lineage back to Timur and verses linking his name with
justice. Jahangir also recorded in his memoirs another garden, known as the
Seat of the King, Takht-i Shah, where Babur in 1 508-09 had carved a large stone
basin and throne inscribed with his name. There Jahangir ordered a twin wine
basin and throne inscribed with Timur’s name and his own.

Thus early in his reign Jahangir used inscriptions on large monuments to link
himself with his immediate Mughal predecessors as well as with Timur, the
ultimate source of Mughal legitimacy. By the time he was well established, he
no longer did this.

A concern with legitimacy was not Jahangir’s sole reason for architectural
patronage during his initial years as king. His memoirs indicate a lively and
varied interest in building. In 1606, he ordered a tower (Plate 68) similar to the

Z. A. Desai, “Inscription on the Mausoleum of Mir Abdullah Mushkin-Qalam at Agra,” forth-
coming.

102

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 54. Jahangir's throne, now in the Agra fort

Hiran Minar at Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 27), to be built next to the grave of a
favorite antelope at Jahangirpur, a place known today as Sheikhupura, near
Lahore. Jahangir ordered it be inscribed with a prose eulogy written by Mulla
Muhammad Husain, whom Jahangir cites as the “chief of the elegant writers of
the day.” 4 Also in the same year he ordered buildings and a garden at his
favorite spring in Kashmir, Vernag (Plate 67). According to Jahangir’s memoirs
as well as epigraphical evidence, he continued to develop both Sheikhupura and
Vernag during the course of his reign. Jahangir also expressed delight over the
small pleasure pavilion in Hasan Abdal, today in Punjab, Pakistan, that had
been built by Raja Man Singh. Here Jahangir relaxed for several days in 1607,
among other activities putting pearls in the noses of fish. Perhaps out of respect
for Man Singh’s pavilion at Hasan Abdal and the garden around it, Jahangir
later ordered that a sizable sum be given for the construction of a bridge and
serai and for restorations to an existing building there. These works at Hasan
Abdal were not the only building enterprises of others that he admired. For
example, he so liked Hakim c Ali’s house and underground reservoir that he
elevated his rank. He described the quarters of Prince Khurram, the future Shah
Jahan, in the Kabul fort as “delightful and well-proportioned.” 5 On the other
hand, Jahangir found his own quarters in this same fort unsuitable and ordered
them destroyed to make room for a new palace and royal audience hall. Thus

4 Tuzuk, 1 : 90 - 91 . 5 Tuzuk) 1 : 115 .

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Jahangir’s keen aesthetic sense, best recognized in his admiration of painting,
extended to architecture as well.

Imperial terraced tombs

Jahangir’s first wife, Shah Begum, the Rajput mother of Khusrau and sister of
Raja Man Singh, poisoned herself in 1604. Jahangir attributed her suicide to
Khusrau’s quest for the throne; more certainly the public contention between
her son and Jahangir were the cause of her unmitigated shame. She was buried
in a garden in Allahabad, which came to be called Khusrau Bagh after Khusrau
was buried there in 1622, and even today retains that name. Finch, traveling
through Allahabad in 1611, called the garden Menepur and observed Shah
Begum’s sumptuous tomb there.

Aqa Reza, the principal artist in Salim Shah’s Allahabad court, was charged
with the responsibility for constructing Shah Begum’s tomb. 6 The garden’s
enormous west entrance gate, aligned with Shah Begum’s tomb, bears an
inscription of 1606-07, stating that “this lofty edifice was completed by Aqa
Reza, the painter, a devoted official of the emperor.” 7 The inscription indicates
that Mughal painters were expected to have talent beyond wielding the
brush.

Dated 1606-07, Aqa Reza’s Chunar sandstone gate is handsome, resembling
more the entrance to a fort than to a pleasure garden. The deeply recessed
entrance arch is flanked on either side by massive engaged bastions. The top
is surmounted with battlements. Little ornamentation is carved on the solid
surface.

By contrast, Shah Begum’s three-tiered tomb (Plate 55) has a lighter, more
graceful appearance. The overall conception may have been inspired by the
Lodi-period tomb of Darya Khan in Delhi, formed of tiered plinths sur-
mounted by a domed chattri covering a grave. The basic plan of Shah Begum’s
tomb, in turn, seems to have been a prime source for the design of Akbar’s
tomb. From the exterior, the ground floor today appears to be an austere
platform, although eighteenth-century drawings indicate that here as well as on
the next level carved screens surmounted each platform.

The top floor consists of a chattri. Situated centrally is the false cenotaph,
common to Islamic tombs. On one end of the cenotaph is a vertical marble slab
carved with a Persian epigraph giving the date of Shah Begum’s death, 1604.
This inscription as well as those on the sides of the cenotaph that describe Shah
Begum’s qualities were designed by Mir c Abd Allah Mushkin Qalam, a major

6 Asok Kumar Das, Painting under Jahangir (Calcutta, 1978), pp. 50, 99.

7 Also see Abdulla Chaghtai, “Aqa Riza Musawwar,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 2nd
Session , 1938, 363-66.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 55. Shah Begum’s tomb, Allahabad

calligrapher for Jahangir. Earlier he designed Shah Salim’s inscriptions on his
black throne in Allahabad (Plate 54); shortly before Jahangir’s accession, he
executed the inscription on the Allahabad fort pillar. The calligraphy of these
inscriptions, characteristic of Mir c Abd Allah’s work, is interlaced with delicate
floral arabesques.

Although the tomb bears no date, it was probably constructed concurrently
with Aqa Reza’s gate and certainly before 161 1, when Finch saw it. The tomb,
like the gate, is a relatively plain structure. Possibly, it would have been too
plain for Jahangir’s tastes, for he found the initial appearance of his father’s
tomb unsatisfactory. But given the difficulties during the first several years of
his reign, when he had no time even to visit the tomb he was building for Akbar
in Sikandra, it seems unlikely that he had much direct role in the design of Shah
Begum’s tomb.

The construction of Akbar’s large multi-storied tomb within a char bagh
(Plate 56) was Jahangir’s most pressing architectural project. Although com-
pleted in Jahangir’s reign, many believe that the tomb was commenced in
Akbar’s lifetime; however, its commencement is not mentioned in any con-
temporary history of Akbar’s reign. The Akbar Nama simply states that the
emperor was buried in a sacred garden called Behishtabad, that is, the Abode of
Paradise, in Sikandra, a suburb of Agra. Other writers of the time, for example,

105

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Muhammad Baqir Najm-i Sani in his literary praise of the tomb, mention only
Jahangir as its patron and designer. 8

Jahangir refers several times to Akbar’s tomb. The first and most extensive
reference records events of the year 1608, when Jahangir first saw the tomb and
expressed great dissatisfaction with its progress. He noted that architects had
built the tomb after their own designs, so he ordered that “experienced archi-
tects should again lay the foundations, in agreement with men of experience, in
several places, on a settled plan. By degrees a lofty building ... a garden . . . and
a large and lofty gateway with minarets of white stone [were] built.” 9 The com-
plex took several years longer to complete. William Finch, visiting the tomb in
1 61 1, states that it was nowhere near completed. His description, however,
suggests that the mausoleum itself was largely finished, while the surrounding
gardens and gates were incomplete. Dated inscriptions on the south gate, the
main entrance, indicate that it was completed between 1612 and 1614.

The tomb’s garden setting follows that same basic format established with
Humayun’s tomb (Plate 19). That is, the square walled garden was sub-divided
into four major sections by watercourses evoking the rivers of paradise. Thus
the tomb is situated metaphorically in the center of a paradisical garden located
in Behishtabad, the Abode of Paradise.

While the garden setting is modeled on that of Humayun’s tomb, Akbar’s
mausoleum itself has little in common with his father’s Timurid-influenced
tomb. Akbar’s tomb consists of five tiered stories. The top floor has no
superstructure but consists of an open-air courtyard enclosed on all four sides
by walls of carved white marble screening. There had been earlier multi-
storied tombs, such as that of Muhammad Ghaus (Plate 42), and the near-
contemporary tomb of Shah Begum, which influenced the appearance of
Akbar’s tomb. But the resemblance of this tomb to contemporary palace archi-
tecture distinguishes it from its predecessors. The tomb’s pillared terraces and
the numerous domed chattris of the upper stories yield a delicate silhouette
resembling closely the five-tiered structure known as the Panch Mahal at
Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 33).

The shift from Humayun’s Timurid-inspired building type replete with
paradisical imagery to tombs resembling contemporary palaces may appear
surprising considering the Mughals’ pride in their Timurid heritage. Palace
building-types, moreover, are more suggestive of splendor, power and wealth
than of paradise, the eternal abode of the just ruler on the Day of Judgment.
However, the Quran mentions the “beautiful mansions in the Gardens of

8 Muhammad Baqir Najm-i Sani, Kulliyat (India Office Per. Ms. 1330), fls. 348-49. Baqir, who died in
1636, refers to Jahangir’s “geometrical problem-solving mind” that he used for the construction of
Akbar’s mausoleum. I am grateful to Sajida Alvi for sharing this text with me and to Yunus Jaffery
for assistance in translation.

9 Tuzuky 1: 152.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 5 6 . Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra

everlasting bliss 5 ’ (9: 72) and more specifically proclaims, “lofty mansions, one
above the other, have been built: Beneath them flow Rivers of delight”
(39: 20). 10 Hence paradisical imagery in imperial funereal architecture con-
tinues; however, it is now modeled upon, yet surpasses, a form of luxurious
royal architecture.

The tomb’s first floor, measuring nearly 105 meters per side, serves as a large
square plinth for the top four stories. It houses the sarcophagus in a square
central chamber; a continuous domed and vaulted gallery is on the building’s
perimeter. According to Sebastien Manrique, who visited the tomb in 1641,
these chambers were used for the 200 readers of the Quran who maintained the
tomb’s sanctity. The central bay of each side is marked by a high pisbtaq
surmounted by a rectangular chattri. White marble inlay is used copiously both
to form panels of geometric patterns along the sides of the central pishtaq and
arabesques in their spandrels. The red sandstone fabric serves as a backdrop for
the white marble. Hence the very materials used on this tomb are suggestive of
the opulence promised to the true believer in paradise on the Day of Judgment.

10 Translations from the Quran are by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (ed. and tr.). The Meaning of the Glorious

Qur’an, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1938).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Of the interior vaulted chambers behind the four pishtaqs , the south one,
which leads to the central domed chamber via a narrow corridor, is the most
elaborate. The lower portions of the walls are inlaid with brown, yellow and
black stones, like those on the floor of Shaikh Salim Chishti’s tomb at
Fatehpur Sikri, while the upper walls and flat domed roof are richly orna-
mented with incised and polychromed stucco forming floral patterns and
arabesques. Gold-painted calligraphy against a deep blue background repro-
duces chapter 47 of the Quran and several other verses (33: 5 6; 37: 180-182).
They stress God’s unique power and glory and describe the gardens of paradise
as the just reward for the true believer.

A long narrow corridor leads to an interior domed chamber that contains
Akbar’s sarcophagus. This square room, about 1 8 meters high, reaches the level
of the tomb’s third story. Although this interior was later whitewashed, Euro-
pean visitors report that originally it was painted with Christian subjects
including angels and the Virgin Mary. But the presence of such images was a
matter of fashion, not a reflection of religious belief.

Contemporary accounts describing the tomb’s desecration by plundering
Jats in the late seventeenth century indicate how sumptuous was the tomb’s
interior. Gold, silver and precious stones as well as all the carpets were pillaged.
Significantly, the attack on Akbar’s mausoleum was perceived as a blow to
Mughal prestige, suggesting its continuing importance as a dynastic
symbol.

Three stories rise above the ground level, each smaller than the previous one.
Delicate red sandstone chattris are placed at frequent intervals along the
exterior walls. The uppermost story consists of a square high walled enclosure
composed entirely of white marble screens used increasingly into the seven-
teenth century for imperial mausolea (Plate 71). Since white marble previously
had been associated with saints’ shrines, the distinction between royalty and
saints was now blurred. At each corner is a large domed cbattri ; the tomb has
no other finials. Above the veranda’s arch-shaped entrances are lintels that bear
verses eulogizing the deceased emperor.

The tomb’s upper story remains open to the sky (Plate 57). In the center is a
magnificently carved white marble cenotaph; at its north end is a lamp stand
( chiraqdan ), also rendered in finely carved white marble. Many believe that
such an exquisitely rendered marble cenotaph, carved with the ninety-nine
names of God and intricate floral motifs, could not have been intended to
remain exposed to the elements and that once there must have been a central
dome. Yet an uncovered cenotaph is the grave-type that meets orthodox
approval and may have been the reason for the open top story of Akbar’s tomb.
But that is only a partial explanation. Considering the Mughal fascination with
light and light symbolism, the placement of this cenotaph directly under the
sun and moon follows especially the interests of Akbar and Jahangir. Under-

108

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 57. Interior top story, Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra

scoring this interpretation is the final verse of the Persian inscription on the
tomb’s entrance gate that reads: “May his [Akbar’s] soul shine like the rays of
the sun and the moon in the light of God.” 11

The imposing gate leading into the complex (Plate 58) bears the dates
1612-13 an d 1613-14. It consists of an enormous recessed central arch flanked
on either side by double-stacked side arches. Surmounting the gate are four
towering white marble minarets, one at each corner. The ornamentation of this
gate is more elaborate than that embellishing the tomb. Geometric patterns and
large floral motifs formed from inlaid white marble and multi-colored stones
stand out against the red sandstone ground. Continuous inscriptional bands of
white marble follow the shape of the recessed arch on both the north and south
facades. They were designed and written by c Abd al-Haqq Shirazi, later known
as Amanat Khan, the designer of inscriptions on several major Mughal monu-
ments including the Taj Mahal. The inscriptions on the north facade, the side

u Edmund W. Smith, Akbar’s Tomb, Sikandarab , Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series,
Vol. xxv (Allahabad, 1909), p. 35.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

facing the tomb itself, appropriately eulogize the deceased emperor. Those on
the south facade, however, largely praise the patron, Jahangir, but terminate
with a poem confirming that the visual metaphors on the Mughal tombs are
indeed references to paradise:

Hail, blessed space happier than the garden of Paradise

Hail lofty buildings higher than the divine throne

A paradise, the garden of which has thousands of Rizwans as servants

A garden of which has thousands of paradises for its land

The pen of the mason of the Divine Decree has written on its court

These are the gardens of Eden, enter them and live forever . 12

The past, and public works

Jahangir’s memoirs are full of details recounting his visits to the buildings of
pre-Mughal rulers and the Mughal nobility. He even commented on how to tell
if a house would bring prosperity or misfortune, indicating the significance that
domestic architecture had for him. 13 Subsequent comments indicate his sense
that the structure’s success does not depend on the building alone. The garden
setting, the role of water and the view become crucial elements in his taste, a
notion that had commenced with Babur. This is probably why pre-Mughal
dwellings rarely please the emperor. He complains that most pre-Mughal
structures in the famous Ranthambor fort were devoid of air and space; by
contrast he praises the view, spatial arrangement and airiness of a bath,
residence and garden also at Ranthambor built by a noble in Akbar’s reign.
While most Mughal-period structures seem to gain his favor, some do not. For
example, he finds fault with Khwaja Waisi’s maintenance of his lands in
Sirhind, enjoining him to replant the gardens, to repair the baths and build new
structures where necessary.

In spite of Jahangir’s general dislike of pre-Mughal houses, he shows much
enthusiasm for the great congregational mosques of the provinces, for example,
the Jamb mosque of Srinagar or the Jamb mosque of Ahmadabad. However,
the mosque he most admires is at Fatehpur Sikri. Due to a serious plague
epidemic in Agra, Jahangir halted at Fatehpur Sikri for some time. He took
much delight in showing his son, the future Shah Jahan, Akbar’s palace there.
Among the buildings of Fatehpur Sikri he discussed at length are the khanqah
of Shaikh Salim Chishti, including a detailed description with measurements of
the Shaikh’s tomb and Akbar’s great Jamb mosque (Plates 25 and 26).
Jahangir’s interest in this architecture of the past takes on special meaning, for
he carefully explains that here he was designated by Shaikh Salim himself as his
spiritual successor.

12 Smith, Akbar’s Tomb, pp. 31-35- 13 Tuztik, 1: 235-36.

I IO

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 58. Gate, Akbar’s tomb, Sikandra

The emperor did not neglect the immediate needs of state in spite of this deep
interest in the past. In 161 1, he issued orders for the establishment of kitchens
for the needy (bulgbur kbanas) in all large cities, and in 1619 he ordered that
public wells and towers to mark distances ( kos minar) should be erected at
frequent, regular intervals between Bengal and the Punjab for the welfare of
travelers. A number of kos minar , probably datable to Jahangir’s time, still
remain between Agra and Lahore. Tall conical structures composed of stone
and rubble and covered with a stucco veneer, these dominant towers were
possibly painted and covered with information giving distances and popular
slogans - as they are today.

Jahangir's palaces: Agra and Lahore

Historians of Shah Jahan’s reign make clear that all Jahangir’s structures in the
Agra fort were destroyed and replaced with Shah Jahan’s marble pavilions.
Fortunately, however, these sources and others give us some insights into
Jahangir’s palaces there. In 1611 he entered a palace inside the Agra fort
prepared for him by Khwaja Jahan Muhammad Dost, an architect who also

1 1 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

built palaces for this emperor at Lahore and elsewhere. This palace, according
to Jahangir, was completed in three months, suggesting that it was a fairly small
structure, not the full extent of his buildings in the fort. Later historians, in the
context of discussing Shah Jahan's renovations, state that Jahangir built three
marble pillared chambers, indicating that the use of marble for palace structures
pre-dates Shah Jahan's reign. These chambers were in close proximity to an
octagonal turret known today as the Musamman Burj, that overlooks the
Jumna river. This turret is a product of Shah Jahan’s reign, replacing an earlier
structure known as the Shah Burj, or King's Tower. To this tower Jahangir
attached his famous Chain of Justice leading outside the fort. The bells of this
chain permitted subjects to rouse the emperor so that he might hear their
grievances, ideally at any time.

Accounts by European visitors to the court, some of whom stayed for
considerable periods of time, indicate that Jahangir's viewing balcony
( jharoka ) from which he daily presented himself to the public was in close
proximity to the Shah Burj. Beneath this balcony Jahangir in \ 6\6 erected
marble statues of the defeated rana of Mewar, Amar Singh, and his son, Karan.
It is generally assumed that these statues of the now-submissive princes were
a sign of the emperor's respect. Akbar, however, had placed statues of
defeated Rajput foes at the Agra palace’s Elephant gate to serve as a reminder
of the emperor’s strength. Jahangir probably had much the same message in
mind.

European visitors, awed by the court and its ceremony, describe gold, silver
and rich textiles ornamenting Jahangir's throne in the Public Audience Hall of
the Agra fort. William Hawkins, who resided at court from 1609 to 1611,
indicates that two red railings separated the most favored members of the
nobility from the slightly less favored and then, in turn, from the lower ranks.
Jahangir's own description of his Public Audience Hall at this time concurs
with Hawkins'. In 1613 Jahangir decided to differentiate the first railing from
the second by covering it with silver; he similarly embellished the steps leading
to the jharoka and two wooden elephants flanking it, further underscoring the
levels of hierarchy within the court.

Persian sources refer to Jahangir's Agra palaces as pillared aiwans y or halls,
giving no further indication of their appearance. However, references by
several European writers, including the Jesuit Father Jerome Xavier, indicate
that Christian subject matter embellished the interior of Jahangir's Agra fort
palaces. Small renderings of the Virgin and winged angels appear in an illus-
tration belonging to the Jahangir Nama , the emperor's memoirs, that depicts
an audience scene with the emperor seated in his jharoka. These paintings of
Christian subjects reflect an awareness of newly arrived western paintings, not
any sympathy with Christianity. The Mughal emperors, who fully recognized
the significance of these works through close contact with Jesuits and other

1 12

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Europeans, used the imagery to enhance their own semi-divine imperial
image. 14

The only remaining addition made by Jahangir to the Agra fort is an enor-
mous stone basin, i.j meters high by 1.2 meters. Dated 1611, the same year
Jahangir married the formidable Mehr al-Nisa, later entitled Nur Jahan, this
cistern may be associated with the nuptial celebrations. It was probably made
as a wine basin similar to the one discussed earlier that Jahangir had carved into
the hillside in Kabul.

In 1612 Jahangir mentions his first additions to Akbar’s Lahore fort. They
were designed by Khwaja Jahan Muhammad Dost, the architect named only
one year earlier as the designer of a palace in the Agra fort. At Lahore, work
under Jahangir must have begun much earlier, for William Finch, visiting
Jahangir’s Lahore palaces in 1610, describes these buildings and their interior
decoration in detail. Jahangir refers to work at the fort on several occasions, and
in 1620, visiting the fort, praises the “charming residences . . . erected in great
beauty . . . and embellished with painting by rare artists.” 15 One of the build-
ings to which Jahangir here refers is a small walled courtyard known today as
the Maktab Khana, identified as the Daulat Khana-i Jahangiri in its inscription.
It was constructed in 1617 under the supervision of Ma c mur Khan, also known
as c Abd al-Karim, an architect associated with other projects of Jahangir and
Shah Jahan. Composed of arched chambers around a central courtyard, it is
situated on the Public Audience Hall’s west side; it served as a large passage
from the palace buildings on the north to the Audience Hall. To the west of this
courtyard is a small white marble mosque known as the Moti mosque.
Although some credit Jahangir for its construction, it is probably Shah Jahan’s
work.

Among other buildings in the fort generally assigned to Jahangir’s patronage
are several small flat-roofed rectangular chambers supported by red sandstone
pillars (Plate 59). These buildings today are in an area known as the Jahangiri
Quadrangle. While their format differs little from Akbar’s palaces, the intricate,
complex carving of elephant brackets, the pillars, and the screened windows of
the northernmost pavilion suggest a date in Jahangir’s reign. These features
compare favorably to those on the Kanch Mahal in Agra, also probably
constructed in Jahangir’s reign.

The most important remaining Jahangiri structure in the Lahore fort is the
Kala Burj (Plate 60). 16 Although undated, the flattened interior of the dome,

14 See Ebba Koch, “The Influence of the Jesuit Mission on Symbolic Representations of the Mughal
Emperors,” in C. W. Troll (ed.), Islam in India, Studies and Commentaries, 1 (New Delhi, 1982),
28-29.

15 Tuzuk , 11: 183.

16 For this structure, see Ebba Koch, “Jahangir and the Angels: Recently Discovered Wall Paintings
under European Influence in the Fort of Lahore,” in J. Deppert (ed.), India and the West (New Delhi,
198 3), 1 7 3 “9 5 -

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 59. Detail, pavilion, Jahangiri Quadrangle, Lahore fort, Lahore

with a net pattern that converges at a stellate medallion center, resembles other
Jahangiri vaulting systems, for example, that of the mosque of Maryam
al-Zamani (Plate 62) dated 16 1 1. Conservation on the dome has revealed paint-
ings of European-influenced angels and birds - some mythological, others real.
They so closely resemble Finch’s descriptions of angels in Jahangir’s Lahore
palaces that this must have been the one he described when visiting the Lahore
fort in 1610. Angels painted in the vaults of the palace’s dome represent the
heavenly retinue of King Solomon, established in the Quran as an ideal ruler
and the mythic kingly figure with whom Islamic rulers frequently associate
themselves. Indeed, this association between ruler and Solomon is no accident,
for, in his sole inscription at the Lahore fort, Jahangir is described as “a
Solomon in dignity,” 17 while imagery on the fort’s exterior tile work, datable
to his reign, alludes to a Solomonic retinue. Included on the tiles are angels,
who aid the mythic king Solomon’s control of the world by leading jinns, or

Nur Bakhsh, “Historical Notes on the Lahore Fort and its Buildings,” Annual Report of the Archaeo-
logical Survey of India, 1902-oj (Calcutta, 1904), 219.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 6 o. Interior dome, Kala Burj, Lahore fort, Lahore

spirits, on chains; this is imagery appropriate for a king who equates himself
with the glory of Solomon.

The other subjects seen by Finch, that is, portraits of the nobility and princes,
each of whom he very carefully identifies, jinns, the Virgin Mary and Jesus no
longer remain. These were probably similar to illustrations known to us from
smaller-scale works on paper.

Unlike the Agra and Allahabad forts, whose outer walls are made of red
stone, the Lahore fort’s walls are brick, a traditional building material of the
northwestern area of the subcontinent. The north and west exterior brick walls
are divided into vertical blocks of arched and paneled areas. The upper panels
are decorated with tile mosaics (Plate 61). Commenced under Jahangir, the
west wall may have been completed under Shah Jahan; but if so the mosaics
were probably done by the same artists, since there is no change in style or
technique. 18

In addition to images of angels, sometimes leading jinns, the tile mosaics on
the fort’s north and west walls depict a myriad of subjects. Since few tiles
remain, it is difficult to determine whether this ornamentation had a specific
program. However, it is notable that the large angels either leading jinns or
holding a regnal standard, and the Simurgh, a mythical bird long associated

18 Koch, “Jahangir and the Angels,” 192.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 6 \. Tiles, exterior walls, Lahore fort, Lahore

with imperial symbolism as well as with Solomonic imagery, are situated in
spandrels above arched openings.

The city under Jahangir

Lahore

Just outside the fort is the mosque of the queen mother, Maryam al-Zamani, the
city’s oldest surviving Mughal mosque. Located near the fort’s Akbar-period
Masti gate, this mosque was probably built as the Jamb mosque for those
attending court. It was not provided by the emperor, but its construction
doubtless met Jahangir’s approval and commenced a Mughal tradition whereby
important court ladies provided the major mosques in imperial cities. Known
as the Begum Shahi mosque and the mosque of Maryam al-Zamani, it was built
in 1611-12. The mosque originally was entered by three handsome gateways,
though only two remain, each bearing historical inscriptions. The gates provide
access to a large walled courtyard before the prayer chamber, whose east facade
is pierced by five arched entrances, the central one within a high pishtaq. Thus
the mosque’s exterior form belongs to a type long popular in Indo-Islamic
architecture. The brick core is covered with a plaster veneer which originally
bore painted ornament.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 62. Interior dome, Maryam al-Zamani’s mosque, also known as the Begum

Shahi mosque, Lahore

Although the interior of the prayer chamber follows a form once associated
with Afghan builders - and now a common Mughal one: a single-aisled
rectangular space divided into five bays - the interior decor established trends
for the later Mughal buildings of Lahore. At the center of the main dome (Plate
62) is a medallion with radiating stellate and net forms rendered in stucco,
completing the exquisite decor of the domes. Similar forms are seen in sub-
sequent Mughal architecture. Also anticipating later works is the treatment of
the mosque’s vaulting, brilliantly painted as are the walls. Unlike the secular
wall painting on Jahangir’s palaces and garden pavilions, here, in keeping with
the aniconic tendencies of Islamic religious art, the patterns are largely floral
and geometric, while the names of God are inscribed within stars on the dome.
Cypress trees and wine vessels are the only representational objects depicted,
but they are symbols of the divine. They are usually associated with later
tombs, but their presence here indicates the adoption of this Iranian motif
much earlier than generally assumed.

Maryam al-Zamani died in Agra in 1623. There is no mention of the con-
struction of a tomb for her in contemporary texts; however, tradition holds that
Jahangir converted for her tomb a baradari in Sikandra not far from Akbar’s
tomb. It is believed to have been initially constructed in the early sixteenth

ii7

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

century by the Lodis. Reusing an older building as a tomb for such an import-
ant member of the imperial family is not within Mughal tradition. Thus, if the
structure is correctly identified, it was surely newly constructed. Indeed, the
tomb adheres to Mughal funereal forms, for its exterior resembles closely the
plinth of Humayun’s tomb (Plate 1 8), while the multi-chambered interior is
typically Mughal.

About 2.5 km from the Lahore fort is an octagonal structure known as
Anarkali's tomb. She was probably one of Jahangir's wives. Its magnificently
carved cenotaph is inscribed with the phrase “the profoundly enamored Salim,
son of Akbar'' and the dates 1599 and 1612. 19 This probably indicates the year
of her death and the tomb's completion.

This octagonal mausoleum, originally situated in a four-part garden, has
several features that depart from those of other imperial tombs. Among these
are the arched opening marking each facade and the semi-engaged octagonal
turret at each of the eight junctures. The interior, however, follows the familiar
plan used for tombs: a central domed chamber is surrounded by smaller ones.
Its marble cenotaph carved with floral arabesques and the ninety-nine names of
God inlaid in black stone is close in ornamentation to the near-contemporary
cenotaph on the upper story of Akbar's tomb.

Ajmer

In 1613 Jahangir left Agra for Ajmer in order to conduct a vigorous campaign
against Rana Amar Singh of Mewar, one of his most formidable opponents.
Two events especially pleased Jahangir during his three years in Ajmer. One
was visiting the shrine of Mu c in al-Din Chishti; the second was the defeat
and submission of Rana Amar Singh in 1615. His resulting enthusiasm for
the city appears to have colored favorably much of Jahangir's attitude toward
architecture - be it pre-existing or newly created - in the environs of
Ajmer.

An auspicious moment was chosen for the emperor's entrance into the city.
He immediately proceeded to the Chishti dargah on foot, thus re-enacting the
pilgrimage to this esteemed shrine that Akbar had performed annually until
1579. En route money was distributed to the poor and pious. Jahangir writes
that, during his nearly three-year stay in Ajmer, he visited the shrine nine times.
Four paintings illustrating these visits are known, suggesting the importance
that the shrine held for Jahangir.

During one visit to this shrine in 1614, Jahangir donated an enormous
cauldron (dig), made in Agra, that could feed 5,000 needy people. It no longer
remains. Akbar earlier had donated a similar vessel at this shrine, 20 suggesting

19 Muhammad Baqir, Lahore , Past and Present (Lahore, 1952), pp. 414-17.

20 See the Persian text in S. A. I. Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions (1532-1852 a.d.) (New Delhi, 1968),
p. 1 7, for the English translation in al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh , 11: 108, is not clear.

1 18

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

that this act had dynastic significance. During the course of a worrisome illness
later in the same year, the emperor paid homage to the shrine. After his
recovery, Jahangir began wearing pearl earrings as a sign of devotion to the
Chishti saint. This custom was quickly adopted by his courtiers. In 161 5, on the
occasion of the saint’s c Urs, the annual remembrance of the saint’s death, the
emperor personally distributed money and other material rewards; this event
was illustrated for the Jahangir Nama . His major material donation to the
shrine was a “gold railing with lattice work” that was installed around the tomb
of Mu c in al-Din in 1616, 21 but taken in eighteenth-century raids. Jahangir states
that the railing was donated in fulfillment of certain vows, but leaves their
exact nature unclear. Another painting for the Jahangir Nama illustrating the
railing’s installation includes Prince Khurram, the future Shah Jahan, and the
military commander in the campaign against the rana of Mewar, standing with
Jahangir at the tomb’s entrance. 22 Thus one of Jahangir’s vows may have been
the successful subjugation of Mewar. While this is the emperor’s last specific
reference to the shrine, in 1623 Jahangir dispatched Habash Khan to repair
buildings in Ajmer, possibly including ones at the dargah.

With the exception of the gold railing, Jahangir’s donations to the shrine
consisted of food and alms, items whose value was most immediately felt by the
pious and needy. Just as Akbar’s interests in the shrine had stimulated increased
patronage on a sub-imperial level, so, as we shall see, the same was true during
Jahangir’s reign.

His sincere devotion to the Chishti saint notwithstanding, Jahangir was in
Ajmer to complete successfully the on-going Mughal campaign against the
ranas of Mewar. Their unwillingness to submit to Mughal authority had been
a source of immense concern. Thus Jahangir celebrated his victory by some
harsh acts - generally idolatrous and certainly disrespectful to local tradition -
all clearly directed at the ranas of Mewar. For example, Jahangir violated local
order by hunting on the banks of the sacred tank at Pushkar, on the outskirts
of Ajmer. While at Pushkar, Jahangir visited some of the Hindu temples
surrounding the tank, and, upon seeing an image of Varaha, the Boar incar-
nation of Vishnu, ordered that it be destroyed and thrown into the tank.
Worshiping a deity in the form of a pig, considered unclean in Islam, was repul-
sive to Jahangir. But he desecrated the image because the temple in which it had
been installed belonged to an uncle of Rana Amar of Mewar, Jahangir’s arch
enemy. Later, in 1620, when Jahangir became the first Muslim ruler to conquer
the Kangra valley, he did similar things. Again, not out of religious sentiment
but for a show of strength, he slaughtered a bullock within the fort’s walls and
erected a mosque as well as other Mughal-style buildings in the vicinity. 23

21 Tuzuk , 1: 329. 22 Das, Painting under Jahangir , pp. 1 50-51. 23 Tuzuk , 11: 223-28.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 6 3. Hunting pavilion, Pushkar

Jahangir notes simply that the ruling power was now the Mughals, a Muslim
state; Hindu subjects were not in any way persecuted or harassed.

In 1615-16 Jahangir constructed a small hunting palace on the banks of the
Pushkar tank (Plate 63). The inscription there states that its buildings were
erected in celebration of Jahangir’s victory over the rana only a short time
earlier. Hence imperial Mughal presence was made permanent on the shores of
a sacred Hindu spot ( tirtha ). The impact of Mughal authority on the Hindu
devotees coming on pilgrimage to this site, considered one of the holiest of all
tirthas y a locale where nothing was to be killed, would have been powerful
indeed. Jahangir, who loved hunting on these shores, visited the Pushkar palace
fifteen times during his residence at Ajmer.

Situated at the edge of the tank in an area away from the temples that line the
water’s banks, this hunting pavilion today is largely in ruins. Even in this
condition it is possible to see that the overall appearance of the buildings lacks
the refinement and elegance of those in his Jahangiri Quadrangle at the Lahore
fort (Plate 59). Only two of the original three small pavilions remain on the
elevated rectangular plinth. These nearly identical structures, located at the
plinth’s east and west ends, face each other. Constructed from a brown-colored
stone, each consists of a single flat-roofed chamber surrounded on the front
and sides by a deep veranda supported on squat polygonal columns. This

120

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 6 4. Pavilion, upper terrace, Chesma-i Nur, Ajmer

trabeated palace, basically modeled on traditional Mughal prototypes, prob-
ably relied on local labor, thus explaining its unrefined appearance.

In the vicinity of Ajmer, Jahangir most loved a small palace he constructed in
1615. He named it Chesma-i Nur, or Fountain of Light, after himself, Nur
al-Din Jahangir. Situated in a picturesque valley on the west side of Taragarh
hill, Jahangir visited the Chesma-i Nur thirty-eight times during his three years
in Ajmer. He laments that it was far from the city and could only be visited on
the weekends. Thomas Roe, at the palace in 1616, recounts the rigorous
journey to reach it. Jahangir describes the palace as having a square tank and a
high-shooting fountain with lovely buildings situated at the fountain's edge.
The chambers were painted by master artists, although Jahangir does not
mention any subjects illustrated.

Roe similarly describes the Chesma-i Nur. Today it is sadly ruined, but the
tank remains as do some buildings on two levels around it. The upper level of
the palace consists of stone pillared pavilions (Plate 6 4) constructed on either
side of a stone stream bed. They face each other as do those at the Pushkar
pavilion. The stream cascaded to the lower level, where an arched and vaulted
chamber (Plate 65), created in part from the natural rock, was built adjacent to
the square tank into which the cooling waters fell. On its arched facade is an
inscription designed by the scribe c Abd Allah, known earlier for his work on

121

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

the Allahabad pillar and Shah Begum’s tomb. Although these buildings were
overall more elegant than those erected concurrently at Pushkar, it is the
setting that makes them spectacular. Considering Jahangir’s concern with any
structure’s total environment, it is hardly surprising that this was among his
favorite dwellings.

Jahangir mentions two large tanks in the city of Ajmer. The Visal Sar, the
smaller of the two, had been in a ruined condition, and in 1616 Jahangir
repaired it. He especially loved the larger tank, the Ana Sagar, which is nearly
1 3 km in circumference and with its waves appears like a veritable lake. Jahangir
describes how he spent the night with the palace ladies on this tank’s lamp-lit
banks. He makes no mention of construction on its banks, but an official
chronicler of Shah Jahan’s reign indicates that Jahangir built marble pavilions
there. While the white marble pavilions on the banks of the Ana Sagar (Plate
104) are generally attributed to Shah Jahan, Jahangir’s son and successor, they
may have been started by Jahangir. The ruins of other structures, still visible at
the west end of the adjoining park, are the only remaining part of Daulat Bagh,
a garden credited to Jahangir.

Mandu

In 1615 Jahangir moved to Mandu, the major hill fortress in Malwa, an area of
west-central India. He wanted to be closer to the Deccan, where Mughal
campaigns had been suffering setbacks for some time. Ahead of him he sent
c Abd al-Karim, later associated with buildings in the Lahore fort. In this hill
fort, the capital of the former sultans of Malwa, the architect was charged with
repairing old palace buildings and with constructing new ones. Jahangir and the
imperial entourage departed from Ajmer in November 1616, reaching Mandu
about four months later. During the journey, the emperor hunted daily, taking
time to explore and even repair buildings along the way. For example, near
Ujjain he restored the mansion of Nasir al-Din Khalji, an earlier sultan of
Mandu, piping water into gardens and fountains. Reaching Mandu in early
1617, Jahangir was delighted with the fort, its setting and climate. c Abd
al-Karim’s restorations there as well as his new construction so pleased the
emperor that he increased the architect’s rank and rewarded him with the title
Ma c mur Khan. Buildings such as the so-called Gada’s house in the Mandu fort
and the Taweli Mahal appear to be products of Mughal restoration or con-
struction, although they cannot be attributed with certainty to Ma c mur Khan,
since the fort had been used under Akbar and Humayun and was subsequently
used by Shah Jahan as well. Probably more restoration than new construction
was carried out. For example, Jahangir’s description of a banquet at Nur
Jahan’s palaces indicates that she occupied structures around the so-called
Jahaz Mahal and the surrounding tanks, structures built previously by the
sultans of Mandu. Further evidence of Jahangir’s admiration for the buildings

121

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 6y Pavilion, lower terrace, Chesma-i Nur, Ajmer

of the Mandu sultans is his favorable descriptions of the Jami c mosque of
Mandu, the tombs of the early kings, and their palaces, especially the Haft
Manazil. Included in his praise is the Nil-Kanth palace, constructed during
Akbar’s reign in 1 574.

Architecture of pleasure: gardens and hunting pavilions

In 1619 Jahangir returned to Agra after a five-year absence. There he once again
found greatest delight in the mansions and gardens of his highest-ranking
nobles and those of his wife, Nur Jahan. Jahangir was highly pleased with his
Gul Afshan garden, probably the same garden later owned by Nur Jahan and
renamed the Nur Afshan Bagh. But at this time Jahangir clearly regarded it his
own project, for he personally rewarded the architect, Khwaja Jahan, by
increasing his rank. This is yet another indication of the emperor’s regard for
architects and garden settings. The Nur Manazil garden, also in Agra, was well
under way about the time of the emperor’s return to the city and appears to be
another of Khwaja Jahan’s designs. 24 Delighted with its appearance, Jahangir

24 Tuzuk y 11: 76-77. It is not stated specifically that Khwaja Jahan is this garden’s designer, but the
context suggests this is the case.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

describes a large walled garden with richly embellished dwellings, water basins,
canals and planted plots. The emperor mentions that a large sum had already
been expended on the project and more was to be spent. Clearly this was done,
for later he mentions this garden as an entertainment site.

In Kashmir’s capital city, Srinagar, Akbar had constructed a massive fort on
a high hill known as the Koh-i Maran or Hari Parbat overlooking Dal lake.
There Jahangir ordered the completion of the unfinished portion of the fortifi-
cations and the restoration of the palace buildings in it, especially a garden and
Public Audience Hall. Mu c tamad Khan was charged with this work. He created
a three-tiered garden. There he had its pavilion embellished with the work of
master painters, as was done at Jahangir’s palaces in Ajmer, Agra and Lahore.
Again, in keeping with many of his earlier works, Jahangir renamed this garden
Nur Afza, Light Increasing, after himself, continuing his long-standing
fascination with light imagery.

The banks of Srinagar’s Dal lake are famed for their magnificent Mughal
gardens. Although Jahangir visited Kashmir more times than any other Mughal
ruler, his role in the construction of the gardens around Dal lake is less clear.
However, in 1620 Jahangir ordered his son, the prince Shah Jahan, to block up
the stream in an area known as Shalimar, near the banks of Dal lake. While the
choice of the setting was Jahangir’s, the garden is Shah Jahan’s (Plate 129). This
world-famous garden will be discussed in the next chapter.

Jahangir gave special attention to gardens in the valley south of Srinagar. He
loved the natural streams and springs, and so added to them canals, fountains
and buildings to create terraced gardens. At Loka Bhavan, some 40 km south
of Srinagar, Jahangir ordered the restoration of the reservoir in front of the
springs, indicating that he was not the spring’s first patron, and constructed a
new building there. In fact, few of these gardens are the result of a single patron.
In close proximity to Loka Bhavan are the springs of Macchi Bhavan and Inch.
Here the patronage was not imperial but that of high-ranking Hindu nobles;
Jahangir describes Ram Das Kachhwaha’s Macchi Bhavan garden and spring
with crystal clear waters, large fish and splendid trees beautiful beyond words.
It seems likely that imperial example stimulated the construction of the
numerous gardens through this valley.

About 8 km north of Loka Bhavan are the natural spring and waterfall of
Achibal (Plate 66). Jahangir describes its water, magnificent trees and enchant-
ing pavilions. He notes a garden with beautiful flowers, not necessarily one he
constructed. Although the garden later was associated with Jahan Ara, Shah
Jahan’s favorite daughter, its appearance was probably established by
Jahangir’s time. At the summit of the terraced garden is the natural spring
which still today is gathered in a large pool that is dammed so that water
pressure produces a powerfully impressive waterfall gushing into lower
terraced canals. The water chutes, carved to resemble rushing water, are of

124

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 66. Garden, Achibal

Mughal origin as are the pavilion bases; however, the pavilions superstruc-
tures, as in most Mughal gardens, are more recently constructed. Achibal, more
than any other Mughal garden, preserves the natural beauty of the falls and

dense foliage, set against the towering hills.

The site in Kashmir most often mentioned by Jahangir is the spring at
Vernag (Plate 67), about 10 km north of Achibal. When still a prince Jahangir
visited Vernag twice. Then the crystal clear waters of the spring, the source of
the powerful Jhelum river, were contained within an octagonal reservoir with
cells nearby for recluses. In 1606 Jahangir ordered that the sides of the spring
be faced with stone and that a garden, canal and splendid edifices be con-
structed. However, both epigraphical and literary sources indicate that they
were not completed until his fifteenth regnal year, 1619-20. Even then, the
canal and its watercourses were not fully finished, for a second inscription,
dated 1626-27, describes the construction of a water course and cascade by the
architect Haider. While much of the garden and surrounding pavilions have
disappeared, the tank, with low walls containing arched apertures and blind
arched niches, still exists as do descendants of the large fish that swim in the

lucid waters, creating a spectacle of royal splendor.

Jahangir twice mentions a tower, tank and pavilion used as a hunting palace
about 29 km from Lahore. Today the site is known as Sheikhupura, but

125

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 67. Pool, Vernag

Jahangir in 1606 refers to it as Jahangirpura and then in 1620 calls it
Jahangirabad, both meaning City of Jahangir, the latter a more Persianate
form. Here the emperor’s favorite tame antelope died before 1606; it was buried
in a grave above which a sculpted antelope and eulogy written by Mulla
Muhammad Husain of Kashmir were placed. Adjacent to this gravestone, a
tower was constructed around 1606 (Plate 68) under the supervision of
Sikandar Mu c in Khan, the landholder of the area. On Jahangir’s orders,
Sikandar Mu c in Khan also built a tank and royal residence. Despite Mu c in’s
death while the work was in progress, the complex was handsomely completed
by 1620, the later stages of construction having been supervised by Iradat
Khan. The expenses incurred were sufficiently awesome that the emperor
recorded the amount in his memoirs. Jahangir considered the site a “kingly
hunting place,” 25 although his successor found the place inadequate and in 1634
spent another sizable sum rebuilding the pavilion.

The tank, tower and pavilion are well preserved. Situated to the west of the
tank, the tower resembles closely the plan and elevation the so-called Hiran
Minar at Fatehpur Sikri and the Nim Serai Minar at Malda, both datable to
Akbar’s reign (Plates 27 and 53). Built about 1606, the Sheikhupura tower
belongs to the very early part of Jahangir’s reign; hence, the close resemblance

25 Tuzuk , 11: 182.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 68. Tower, Sheikhupura

to Akbari prototypes is not surprising. Missing are the tusk-like projections
around the sides, but holes that would have accommodated them remain. The
tower’s brick fabric was originally covered with a thick stucco veneer which
retained traces of red, yellow and green polychrome until recently, when it was
plastered anew. The tower sits on an octagonal base and was possibly used as
an observation post for hunting. Aligned with the tower is a three-storied
octagonal pavilion situated in the center of a large square tank. The tank was
constructed in Jahangir’s reign, but the three-storied octagonal pavilion in its
current state is a product of Shah Jahan’s patronage (Plate 128).

Nur J ah art's patronage

Jahangir married the widow Nur Jahan in 1611, although his writings do not
mention her until 1614. She quickly overshadowed Jahangir’s other wives and
assumed an unprecedented role in courtly and political life. Nur Jahan, her
father, I c timad al-Daula, and her brother, Asaf Khan, formed a powerful
triumvirate and essentially controlled the state. By the end of Jahangir’s reign,
when the emperor was incapacitated by failing health, Nur Jahan was the

127

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

virtual ruler. Jahangir himself acknowledged her ability and legitimized her
power. He made her Finance Minister after the death of the previous minister,
her father. Coins were even minted in her name, an honor otherwise reserved
for the emperor. While the powerful queen was deeply appreciated by Jahangir,
other factions viewed her less favorably, ultimately creating schisms within the
state. Much of this factionalism was contained until late 1621, when Ptimad
al-Daula, a stabilizing force, died. Because Nur Jahan championed her son-in-
law, Shahriyar, as Jahangir’s heir apparent, the eldest prince, Shah Jahan,
revolted. She nevertheless maintained control until Jahangir’s death in 1627,
thereafter residing quietly in Lahore until her death in 1645.

Not only interested in politics, Nur Jahan is famed for her impact on culture.
She invented a rose perfume, fashioned clothing styles, created new carpet
designs, and wrote poetry. Her patronage of architecture is well established
although rarely mentioned in contemporary texts. It is better known from
inscriptions and the writings of European travelers.

According to Francisco Pelsaert, a European residing in India during the
height of Nur Jahan’s power, the queen constructed pleasure gardens, palaces
and serais throughout the land in order to enhance her image and reputation.
He further indicates that she built for financial gain. For example, her serai just
outside of Agra, situated at the end of the lucrative Patna-Agra trade route,
gave the queen complete control over tariffs levied on goods coming from
eastern India into Agra and further north. Without these goods, he notes, the
country soon would starve. The serai, no longer extant, covered a large area on
the east bank of the Jumna; on its outskirts were the tomb of Ptimad al-Daula
and several gardens, including the Nur Afshan garden, both products of the
queen’s patronage. Thus most of the river frontage on the Jumna’s east bank
probably was under the empress’ control. Peter Mundy, who stayed twice in
this serai, describes it as a handsome stone structure with arched and domed
chambers capable of housing 2,000 to 3,000 people and 500 horses.

Although the Agra serai no longer exists, another constructed by her, known
as Serai Nur Mahal (Plate 69), stands in a town of the same name in Jalandhar
District, Punjab. Inscriptions on the serai indicate that it was commenced in
1618-19 and completed two years later. Jahangir records that he stayed in
this serai in 1621 and was splendidly entertained by his queen there. Serai
Nur Mahal was commenced about the time that Jahangir had issued orders for
kos minar to be constructed from Agra through the Punjab and for the repair
of the road between Kashmir and Agra. One of many serais along this road,
Serai Nur Mahal with its carved red sandstone gates was especially impressive.
Its enclosure walls contained 124 chambers and a mosque. In the center of
the south wall was a three-storied royal apartment, originally painted,
probably with motifs similar to those in Jahangir’s Lahore fort (Plate 60) and
the queen’s Nur Afshan garden in Agra. Among Mughal serais this one is

128

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 69. Serai Nur Mahal, Serai Nur Mahal

unusually handsome, not surprising considering Nur Jahan’s resources and
taste.

Among the many gardens credited to Nur Jahan is her Bagh-i Nur Afshan in
Agra, known today as the Ram Bagh. It was probably constructed on the site
of Babur’s Gul Afshan, or Flower Scattering Garden. By 1621 the name
apparently had been changed to Bagh-i Nur Afshan, Light-Scattering Garden,
once again using light imagery while playing upon the imperial names.

This char bagh is terraced and laid out with stone water courses. Originally
the garden, like all Mughal gardens, was planted with cypress trees, small
groves of fruit trees and flowers. Although the current planting of the Bagh-i
Nur Afshan little resembles the original layout, portions of the channels, tanks
and pavilions remain.

At the top of the terrace overlooking the river Jumna are two similar
pavilions that face one another (Plate 70), an arrangement seen earlier at
Pushkar and Chesma-i Nur. Between them is a large sunken tank and stairs
leading to vaulted chambers below. Each rectangular pavilion is composed of
three sections of pillared aiwans that alternate with two flat-roofed enclosed
chambers. Although largely white-washed, portions of the interior painted

12 9

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 70. Pavilion, Bagh-i Nur Afshan, today known as the Ram Bagh, Agra

vaulting have been restored. Within net vault forms are painted birds, angels, a
Simurgh and floral designs, all related to Solomonic imagery appropriate for
royalty and similar to that within Jahangir’s Kala Burj in the Lahore fort (Plate
60). Traces of paintings, including one of a courtly lady that is European-
influenced, also remain on the exterior walls. According to Mundy and others,
European-influenced painting was common on the walls of similar pavilions.

Today the best preserved of all Nur Jahan’s architectural projects is the tomb
she constructed for her parents in Agra (Plate 71). This white marble mauso-
leum is known as the tomb of Etimad al-Daula, although both Nur Jahan’s
mother, Asmat Begum, who died in 1621, and her father, who died in the same
year, are buried there. Nur Jahan, who genuinely was devoted to her parents,
spent vast sums on its construction. The tomb was completed about six years
after their death as indicated by inscriptions dated 1626-27 and 1627-28 that
were written by the scribe c Abd al-Nabi al-Quraishi.

Situated on the river bank, the tomb is a small two-storied marble structure
in the center of a char bagh about 165 meters square. It is approached by road
from the east through a red sandstone gate; a gate on the west serves as the river
entrance. This multi-storied western entrance is conceived as a pleasure
pavilion with spacious interior chambers and arched openings overlooking the
river. Similar sandstone structures, not actual entrances, are on the north and

130

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 7 1. Tomb of Ttimad al-Daula, Agra

south sides. On all four, the red stone is inlaid with white marble, a typical
Mughal device.

The white marble tomb, about 7 meters per side, is magnificently crafted and
profusely inlaid with semi-precious stones. Resting on a low red sandstone
plinth, the tomb’s first story is marked at each corner by an engaged octagonal
turret. On each side is a single arched portal flanked by screened openings for
illumination. The interior is divided into nine bays, recalling in concept the
arrangement of Humayun’s tomb. However, unlike the radial plan based on an
octagon found at Humayun’s tomb, here eight rooms, two on each side, hug
the central vaulted chamber. This plan is seen earlier at Akbar’s Ajmer palace,
and derives in its Indo-Islamic context from palace structures. The walls of all
these rooms are richly painted with flowers, vases, cypresses and wine vessels,
but the central chamber, containing two stone cenotaphs, is the most lavishly
embellished. The ceiling’s richly polychromed net vaulting and stellate forms
are a more refined version of those at Maryam al-Zamani’s mosque (Plate 6 2),
built early in Jahangir’s reign. 26

26 Koch, “Jahangir and the Angels,” 176.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

The second or top story is marked at each corner by a chattri - topped turret.
In the center is a single chamber, surmounted by a truncated pyramidal vault.
Intricately carved pierced screens, modeled on those at Shaikh Salim Chishti’s
tomb, essentially form the walls.

Semi-precious stones are profusely inlaid into the white marble of the tomb’s
exterior as well as in the interior of the second story. Most believe that this
pietra dura technique - that is, design rendered by the inlay of hard precious
stones into marble - was introduced from Europe in the seventeenth century;
others maintain that this technique developed independently without western
stimulation. Regardless of the technique’s origin, in India only on Mughal
architecture is it used as a major source of decoration.

Inlay forming designs similar to those on the gateway to Akbar’s tomb,
where they are executed in less precious stones, cover the first story’s exterior.
On the upper story there are wine vessels, fruit and cypress trees (Plate 72).
These forms, drawn from Persian poetry, were long known in Indo-Islamic
culture, but their depiction on Mughal architecture probably derives from
Safavid sources. For example, there are wine vessels in the ceiling of the c Ali
Kapu, the entrance to Shah c Abbas’ palace in Isfahan built about the turn of the
seventeenth century. Such motifs appear in India first on Jahangir-period archi-
tecture, for example on the mosque of Maryam al-Zamani in Lahore. Since
I c timad al-Daula and his family come from Safavid Iran, the use of these motifs
is particularly appropriate. At this time, many artists from the Safavid court
immigrated to Mughal India.

While Safavid in origin, these forms serve as symbols of paradise and the
divine. For example, fruit is a promised commodity of paradise in numerous
Quranic verses, thus appropriate for funereal imagery. Although the consump-
tion of wine is forbidden in Islam, the promised nectar in paradise according to
the Quran will be a pure wine that gives neither inebriation nor headache. In
addition, wine and the consumption of wine in Persian mystical poetry is used
as a metaphor for spiritual intoxication resulting from the intense feeling of
love for the beloved, who on the most profound level is God. The cypress tree
in mystical poetry is yet another reference to God. In lieu of literary inscrip-
tions inviting one to paradise, as on the entrance to Akbar’s tomb, here the con-
cept of paradise is enhanced by using expensive materials and visual devices to
suggest that the heavenly abode of the deceased royal noble will surpass even
his earthly abode.

Although the tomb is commonly described as Safavid influenced, this only
pertains to the choice of decorative motifs. The overall appearance of the tomb
is wholly Indian, recalling, for example, the exterior of Akbar’s Diwan-i Khass
at Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 31). I c timad al-Daula’s tomb, like Akbar’s (Plate 56),
belongs to the type based on contemporary palace pavilions.

The intricately carved marble screens of the top floor (Plate 73), similar to

132

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF THE EMPEROR AND EMPRESS

Plate 72. Detail of inlay, I c timad al-Daula’s tomb, Agra

those on Shaikh Salim Chishti’s tomb (Plate 26), allow light to flood the room,
making it appear to dissolve. Given the imperial Mughal fascination with light
and in particular Nur Jahan’s and Jahangir’s obsession with light imagery, the
manipulation of light here seems intentional. Light was more than an imperial
symbol. For the Mughals, it also served as a metaphor for Divine Light,
symbolizing the very presence of God. This play of light upon the solid
marble of the room may be intended as a reminder that only God, here
symbolized by light, is real - all other is illusion.

In contrast to the chamber’s light-flooded elevation are the sinuous
arabesques and floral motifs formed from yellow and brown semi-precious
stones inlaid into the white marble floor. This recalls the design of expensive
carpets, such as those depicted in contemporary court paintings, for example,
one at Mu c in al-Din’s shrine in Ajmer illustrated for the Jahangir Nama, Here
again is an instance where the most coveted forms from temporal life are used
to depict the luxury anticipated in paradise.

*33

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Western India

Ajmer and vicinity

Roe, writing in January 1616, noted that in Ajmer the nobility resided in tents
since there was only one stone-constructed residence there - that of the king -
all others being mud-built. Not much later, however, the nobility must have
built stone dwellings, for Mundy, who visited Ajmer in 1633, states that the
housing constructed by Jahangir's court was already in ruins.

In Ajmer, as elsewhere, Jahangir's presence stimulated building by others.
This is particularly so at the Chishti shrines of Mu c in al-Din and Khwaja Sayyid
Husain Khing Sawar. Concurrent with Jahangir's presence in Ajmer inscribed
gates, graves and ancillary buildings were constructed at each shrine. The most
significant material contribution was I c tibar Khan's lattice railing provided in
1615 around the grave of Husain Khing Sawar. It was given in celebration of
Jahangir's victory over the rana of Mewar. Jahangir a year later donated a gold
railing to the Chishti shrine below, almost certainly for this same reason,
perhaps in a curious reversal deriving his inspiration from sub-imperial
patronage.

Patronage in Rajasthan was not limited to shrines. For example, in 1615
Gajhast Khan, Jahangir's supervisor of elephant stables, constructed a step-well
in Gangwana, close to Ajmer. Carved at the bottom of the inscriptional slab is
an elephant and prodding implements, emblems appropriate for his position. In
the same year Nawab Daulat Khan provided additions to a palace he had com-
menced during Akbar’s reign in Fatehpur, Shekhawati District. Jahangir's
mother, Maryam al-Zamani, built a serai and well near Bayana in 1613-14.
Lying on the Fatehpur Sikri-Ajmer route in an important indigo growing
center, it accommodated both Jahangir and the traveler Finch. Nobles built
mosques during this period at Merta, Hindaun and Jalor, and an c Idgah (a
mosque intended especially for the annual Td celebrations) was constructed in
1613 at Bairat, in the ancestral lands of Raja Man Singh. With the exception of
Jalor, situated on the Surat-Ajmer trade route, all these works were con-
structed in a region between Agra and Ajmer, then under firm control of the
Mughals.

Ahmadabad

Ahmadabad remained the primary city of Gujarat under the Mughals just as it
had been under the independent sultans of Gujarat. During Jahangir's reign,
both gardens and mansions were built, although few of these survive in their
original condition. The garden and palace (Plates 74-75) that the prince Shah
Jahan constructed for himself is today used as a museum and known as the

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 73. Interior top story, I c timad al-Daula’s tomb, Agra

Moti Bagh. Built during the prince’s tenure as governor there between 1616 and
1623, it was known then as Shahi Bagh (Princely Garden). Jahangir, who
admired this residence, had a marble seat built in its garden. A European
visiting Ahmadabad in 1638 praised the gardens, its reservoirs and the palace
as unusually lovely. This is not surprising, for its patron, Shah Jahan, would
become the greatest Mughal patron of architecture. Shah Jahan’s palace is
characteristic of contemporary Mughal architecture. The exterior is a two-
storied trabeated structure with a delicate pillared entrance, essentially a more
refined version of Akbar’s Ajmer palace (Plate 20). It contains vaulted sub-
terranean rooms with water cascades for protection from the summer’s heat.
The ground floor is similar in plan to many Mughal-period mansions. There is
a large square central chamber surrounded by eight smaller ones. These rooms
are covered by stucco vaulted ceilings embellished with delicate net patterning.
According to an eighteenth-century visitor, the rooms were finished with a
highly burnished chuna and tastefully painted.

Although other gardens and palaces were built by nobles in Ahmadabad,
hardly any survive. Rather, religious structures are best preserved because they

135

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 74. Plan of Shahi Bagh, today known as the Moti Bagh, Ahmadabad

had a popular and continuing base of support. This may be seen with the
architecture of Shaikh Farid Bukhari, entitled Murtaza Khan, who was
Jahangir’s governor of Gujarat from 1606 to 1609. Known for his patronage
throughout the Mughal domain, he established in Ahmadabad a quarter known
as Bukhari, after himself, and built administrative buildings in the city; none of
these remains. Still standing, however, is the tomb he constructed for Shaikh
Wajih al-Din (Plate 76), who had died in 1598. Shaikh Wajih al-Din was a
disciple of Muhammad Ghaus, who had resided in Gujarat and whose tomb in
Gwalior was discussed in the previous chapter. When governor, Shaikh Farid
Bukhari built Wajih al-Din’s tomb. It is a large stone structure whose interior
is divided into eighteen bays. Small domes surmount the roof; over the saint’s

136

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 75. Shahi Bagh, Ahmadabad

grave is a bulbous dome resting on a high constricted neck, recalling the shape
of the dome on Ataga Khan's tomb in Delhi (Plate 16). The screens that
comprise the walls are small square panels emulating those at the nearby shrine
of Sarkhej that later Jahangir greatly admired. Thus the tomb reflects pan-
Mughal and regional traditions.

North India

Lahore and the road to Delhi

During Jahangir's reign, Lahore, Delhi and Agra remained the primary cities in
north India. They lay along the route to Kashmir, the imperial pleasure
grounds, as well as on the road to Kabul and Qandahar further to the north-
west. This was territory that Jahangir, because of his Timurid heritage, believed
was rightfully his, even though by the end of his reign it was no longer Mughal.
Just as Jahangir and Nur Jahan built in cities along these routes, so did other
members of the Mughal house and the nobility.

Under Jahangir, Lahore gained increasing prominence. European visitors
describe Lahore as one of the great cities of the east. Included among the sub-
imperial structures they mention are the char bagh of Asaf Khan, the mosque
of Shaikh Farid Bukhari, a serai and a great bazaar, none of them surviving.
On the road from Lahore to Kashmir, Jahangir ordered his nobles to build

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 76. Tomb of Shaikh Wajih al-Din, Ahmadabad

serais because it was too cold to stay in tents. 27 Similarly, the road from Lahore
to Agra was lined with serais. Many of them were constructed in response to
Jahangir’s accession orders demanding that serais and wells be constructed
in the hinterlands. Beside the empress’ Serai Nur Mahal (Plate 69), already
discussed, others were in regular use. Finch, writing in 1610, mentions many
serais, including one at Sirhind with a tank and pleasure pavilion in the middle
and another under construction by Jahangir at Fatehpur to celebrate his defeat
of Khusrau. Others traveling later in the century state that beautiful serais were
built about every 20 km by great men or the king to enhance the road, to
glorify the patron’s name and to ensure the safety of travelers. 28

One of the best preserved serais of Jahangir’s time on the Lahore-Delhi
route is Serai Doraha (Plate 77) in the Punjab between Serai Nur Mahal and
Sirhind. Constructed of brick, a medium typical of this region, the serai covers
a square of about 168 meters. Within the walls are the remains of a hammam.
A domed mosque, originally covered with paintings, is situated in the serai’s

27 c Inayat Khan, The Shah Jahan Nama of c I nayat Khan , tr. A. R. Fuller and eds. W. E. Begley and
Z. A. Desai (Delhi, 1990), p. 1 23.

28 Richard Steel and John Crowther in Samuel Purchas (ed.), Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His
Pilgrimes , 20 vols. (Glasgow, 1905-07), iv: 268.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 77. Serai Doraha, Lahore-Delhi road

center. The north and south brick entrance gates remain the most striking
portions of the serai. Each facade is pierced with a large recessed entrance arch
that is framed with a rectangular band of glazed tile-work, also typical of this
region.

The Doraha serai bears no inscription, but on the basis of stylistic and
literary evidence it is datable to about 1610. The gates’ geometric tile decoration
resembles closely that on the nearby octagonal tomb built in 1612-13 at
Nakodar. Moreover, in 1611 and 1615 travelers mention Doraha as a halting
place, suggesting that it was ready for use as early as 161 1. Later it was known
as Ltimad al-Daula serai, indicating that this powerful figure may have been the
patron. Doraha was part of his landholding. 29

Although serais directly facilitated trade and travel and so were a highly
significant architectural form, many other structures in the area between Delhi
and Lahore result from sub-imperial patronage. At Nakodar, for example, is a
tomb consistent with contemporary courtly taste (Plate 78). Dated 1612-13,
this octagonal tomb was built for Muhammad Mumin Husaini, a musician in
the court of c Abd al-Rahim Khan-i Khanan, who was a very high-ranking
noble under Akbar and Jahangir. It is constructed of brick and embellished

Wayne E. Begley, “Four Mughal Caravanserais Built during the Reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan,”
Muqarnas, i, 1983, 172.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

with glazed tiles inlaid in geometric patterns, materials and designs typical of
Mughal architecture of this region. Even the plan anticipates evolving Mughal
taste, for it is not a regular octagon but a type known as Baghdadi octagon, that
is, with four sides longer than the intermediate ones. Here the larger sides bear
deeply recessed arches flanked by shallow arched niches, while the alternating
smaller ones are marked by two vertically arranged arches. A Timurid building
type, the Baghdadi octagon had been used in the early Mughal period, for
example at the Delhi Sabz Burj. It is seen increasingly in Jahangir’s, but
especially in Shah Jahan’s reign.

Some structures, however, continue to follow older patterns, but generally
they were constructed by little-known subjects, not high-ranking nobles, who
more often than not followed and perpetuated contemporary Mughal taste. At
Jhajjar, for example, several tombs built between 1 6 1 1 and 1625 are in the form
of pillared chattris similar to ones built here in Akbar’s time. Others are small
square tombs reminiscent of even older structures, those built commonly
during the pre-Mughal Lodi period.

Delhi

Delhi remained a city of major importance during Jahangir’s time and archi-
tecture there tended to be innovative. Here, for example, notables such as
Shaikh Farid Bukhari built their own tombs; nearby Shaikh Farid Bukhari
established the town of Faridabad, providing a serai and mosque. Visits by the
emperor to Delhi inevitably included hunting in the environs, attending to
administrative concerns and visits to Humayun’s tomb and the adjacent
Chishti dargah of Nizam al-Din. The dargah was particularly revitalized
through architectural patronage during the Mughal period. In it, the tomb of
the fourteenth-century poet Amir Khusrau, considered by many the greatest
writer of Indian Persian, had been embellished during the reigns of Babur,
Humayun and Akbar. The tomb as it presently appears, however, was con-
structed in 1605-06 by Khwaja Tahir Muhammad Imad al-Din Hasan during
Jahangir’s reign. Within a Humayun-period rectangular enclosure composed
of red sandstone latticed walls (Plate 13) is the Jahangir-period tomb (Plate
194). It is constructed of white marble lattice screen walls continuing a
tradition established in Akbar’s reign (cf. Plate 26). There screens are
surmounted by a pyramidal vault. The white marble provides a subtle visual
link between the poet, long revered as a saint, and Nizam al-Din himself, also
enshrined in a tomb of this material.

Nizam al-Din’s own tomb, reconstructed during Akbar’s reign, was further
embellished by Shaikh Farid Bukhari. In 1 608-09, he provided a canopy for the
tomb’s interior. Constructed of wood exquisitely inlaid with mother-of-pearl,
this canopy is a rare example of dated Mughal woodwork. Four bracketed
pillars support the canopy’s vaulted roof, reflecting the inscription here that

140

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

♦

Plate 78. Tomb of Muhammad Mumin Husaini, Nakodar

describes the sky as supported on four pillars. The inscription further states
that the canopy was donated to honor the saint, but also to increase the honor
of the builder. Concurrently with the provision of this canopy, Shaikh Farid
Bukhari built the tomb of another Chishti saint, Wajih al-Din, in Ahmadabad,
and several other religious buildings in the eastern Indian city of Bihar Sharif
(Plates 76 and 94).

While these two structures in the dargah date to the initial period of
Jahangir's reign, the next monument, containing a grave inscribed 1623-24,
belongs to his final years. This is the tomb of Mirza c Aziz Koka Khan-i A c zam,
the son of Ataga Khan (Plate 79). He built this, his own mausoleum, during his
lifetime, but earlier, in Akbar’s reign, he had constructed a tomb for his father
in this dargah. Mirza c Aziz Koka obviously favored beautiful buildings. For
example, his house in the Agra fort was painted by the head of Akbar’s paint-
ing atelier, c Abd al-Samad, 30 and his tomb remains the finest Jahangir-period
building in Delhi today. Constructed wholly of white marble, the tomb is
known popularly as the Chausath Khamba after the sixty-four pillars that
divide it internally into twenty-five bays. Each bay is surmounted by a dome;
nevertheless, externally the tomb appears flat-roofed. Each facade contains five

30 Bhakkari, Dbakhirat aUKhawanin, i: 87.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 79. Mirza c Aziz Koka Khan-i A c zam’s tomb, Delhi

arches supported by square pilasters. Between each pilaster is a screen recalling
those at the tomb of Sarkhej in Gujarat. The links with Sarkhej are not acci-
dental, for Mirza c Aziz Koka served several times as Jahangir’s governor of
Gujarat. He died there and was temporarily buried at Sarkhej. With the excep-
tion of the marble screens, the tomb bears very little ornamentation; its forms
instead emphasized by uncluttered lines of the white marble surface serve as the
main architectural vocabulary. Thus this tomb, perhaps more than any other
surviving example of late Jahangir-period architecture, serves as a transition to
the style associated with Shah Jahan’s period.

Yet not all work in Delhi reflects current trends. Situated roughly between
the dargah and Humayun’s tomb is the tomb of c Abd al-Rahim Khan-i
Khanan, who died in 1626, a great general under both Akbar and Jahangir.
Modeled on Humayun’s tomb, the Khan-i Khanan’s tomb is a large square
domed structure that probably once stood in a four-quartered garden. This
tomb was originally embellished with red sandstone and narrow strips of white
marble trim as at Humayun’s tomb. Most of the facing, however, was stripped
in the eighteenth century and used on the tomb of Safdar Jang in south Delhi.
The tomb appears remarkably conservative for a structure built at the time of
the Khan-i Khanan’s death. It may, in fact, be an earlier work, for, despite its
half-dome and the net squinches within recessed entrance arches, one Mughal

142

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 80. Entrance, serai, Chatta

source states that the Khan-i Khanan was buried in the tomb of his wife, who
had died in 1 598. 31

The road from Delhi to Allahabad

The road between Delhi and Agra was marked during Jahangir’s reign by kos
minar , many of them still extant. Along this road, the highest-ranking nobles
built magnificent serais - at Faridabad, Hodal, Palwal, Chatta and Mathura.
This construction was intended in part to protect their own investments; for
example, Maryam al-Zamani, the queen mother, invested heavily in trade. It
also responded to Jahangir’s accession order that serais be built, earning these
nobles greater favor with the king, while at the same time serving as a mani-
festation of their own power and wealth.

Although most of these serais have disappeared, at least the entrance gate of
one, at Chatta, about 60 km north of Agra, is well preserved (Plate 80). The red
sandstone gate, flanked on either side by oriel windows, is entered through a

31 See Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin , i: 60, for the burial spot and Maasir , 1: 88, for the date of his
wife’s death.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 8 1. Partial facade, Kanch Mahal, Agra

deeply recessed arch. Although the gate is uninscribed, the carved wine vessels
and elaborate battlement that embellish it reflect current Mughal taste. That
date is also supported by literary evidence. Finch, traveling in 1611, omits
Chatta from his extensive list of serais, but Steel and Crowther, traveling in
1615, mention it, suggesting that the Chatta serai was constructed between
161 1 and 1615.

Beyond Chatta lay Agra, Jahangir’s paramount city, then known as
Akbarabad. Contemporary texts refer to the splendid structures built by the
nobility there. Few of these remain, however, except the mosque of Mu c tamad
Khan and two buildings known as the Kanch Mahal and the Suraj Bhan-ka
Bagh, both constructed of red sandstone that bears elaborate carved ornament.

The Kanch Mahal (Plate 8 1), a gateway to a tomb, is situated east of Akbar’s
tomb. Its proximity to this imperial tomb suggests that the structure was built
by a member of the royal household; the elaborate screens in its windows, areas
that otherwise are left open, indicate it was used by women. A two-storied
structure, this entrance gate opens onto a rectangular courtyard containing an
octagonal tomb. Several features of the Kanch Mahal confirm its Jahangir-
period date. Its interior plan with a central chamber surrounded by eight
smaller ones follows that of other buildings of the time, for example, the prince
Shah Jahan’s Shahi Bagh in Ahmadabad (Plate 74). Its elaborately carved red

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 82. Mu c tamad Khan’s mosque, Agra

sandstone facade is magnificently trimmed with white marble inlay, an
elaboration of the surface that evolves from such earlier buildings as Akbar’s
so-called Sultana’s House at Fatehpur Sikri and the Jahangiri Mahal at Agra
fort (Plate 21). Here, however, the surface of the Kanch Mahal is even more
complex. Motifs such as the wine vessels, not seen in Akbar-period buildings,
and the dominant arabesque of the spandrels recalling those on the gateway of
Akbar’s tomb, confirm the Kanch Mahal’s Jahangir-period date.

In the heart of Agra city is a well-preserved red sandstone mosque attributed
to Mu c tamad Khan (Plate 82). He was responsible for Jahangir’s officers
serving in the Deccan. The emperor was very fond of Mu c tamad Khan and
entrusted him with writing his memoirs when he himself was no longer able to
do so, stating that Mu c tamad Khan “is a servant who knows my temperament
and understands my words.” 32 Perhaps inspired by this trust, he wrote his own
history of Jahangir’s reign, the Iqbal Nama.

As at the Kanch Mahal and Suraj Bhan-ka Bagh, the red sandstone surface of
this rectangular mosque is divided into square and rectangular panels carved
with wine vessels and geometric patterns (Plate 83). The engaged exterior

32 Tuzuk y 11: 246.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 83. Detail of Mu c tamad Khan’s mosque, Agra

turrets, similar to those on I c timad al-Daula’s tomb (Plate 71), may suggest a
date toward the end of Jahangir’s reign. The placement of the decoration in
panels that cover the surface in a grid plan is characteristic of later Jahangiri
ornamentation, seen, for example, on the Serai Nur Mahal dated 1618-20
(Plate 69). Thus, in the Agra region, close to the Fatehpur Sikri quarries,
nobles favored construction in red sandstone carved with elaborate
decoration.

A number of serais marked the road between Agra and Allahabad but few
remain. The largest monument in Allahabad remained Akbar’s fort that had
been seized by Jahangir in his days as Shah Salim. But he appears to have made
no subsequent additions there. Rather it was the four-part garden containing
the tomb of his first wife, Shah Begum (Plate 55), that was embellished later in
his reign. It became the site of two more princely tombs. In the center of this
garden, aligned with the queen’s tomb, is that of her daughter, Sultan Nisar
Begum, while the more distant from the queen’s tomb but still aligned with it
is the tomb of her son, Khusrau. Behind Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb is a large
baoliy praised by Mundy, that provided water for the four-part garden.

In 1621 Jahangir delivered his ill-fated son, Khusrau, into the hands of Prince

146

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 84. Khusrau’s tomb, Allahabad

Shah Jahan; a year later Khusrau was dead. Many believe that Shah Jahan
murdered his elder brother, seeing him as a potential rival for the throne.
Khusrau’s body, according to the European Manrique, was taken first to Agra,
but at Nur Jahan’s insistence was removed from the imperial capital to
Allahabad. During the journey, shrines honoring him as a saint were erected,
but quickly dismantled under imperial order.

A verse inside the Chunar sandstone tomb bears the date 1622, recording the
year of Khusrau’s demise, not the tomb’s construction. It was probably com-
menced by Sultan Nisar Begum, Khusrau’s sister, when she constructed her
own tomb. This square-plan tomb appears two-storied from the exterior, even
though it consists of a single chamber (Plate 84). A single dome surmounts it,
and a chattri is placed at each corner. Above the tomb’s arched entrance is a
recessed demi-dome in whose kite-shaped pedentives are painted floral
patterns and an angel.

On the interior of the tomb’s dome is a central medallion with radiating
stellate and net patterning; it is similar to the one at I c timad al-Daula’s near-
contemporary tomb. The walls are painted with cypress, floral and other
motifs, but it is the Persian verses, whose message reflects the sorrow of
Khusrau’s own life, that dominate the interior. Next to the cenotaph, Mundy
observed in 1632, was Khusrau’s own copy of the Quran. Then, too, a wooden

147

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 85. Interior dome, Sultan Nisar Begum's tomb, Allahabad

canopy, probably similar to that in Shaikh Nizam al-Din’s tomb, was over the
grave. Thus despite imperial injunction, the deceased Khusrau was given
saintly status.

The tomb Sultan Nisar Begum built for herself in 1624-25 but never used
is the most impressive. Similar to Khusrau’s tomb, this one sits on a very
high plinth, dominating the garden. Its Chunar sandstone fabric is more
elaborate than Khusrau’s, embellished with panels of carved scalloped arches.

Within the crypt in the plinth's interior is a small chamber whose ceiling is
conceived as a series of concentric stars within a net-like vault. Here the
original polychrome of yellows, blues and reds is beautifully preserved. The
dome of the tomb’s main chamber (Plate 85) is similar in conception; its walls
(Plate 86) bear paintings of wine vessels, geometric dadoes, cypresses and flower-
ing plants of the type derived from European herbals popular in the late
Jahangir period. Persian verses evoking God as the sole refuge also embellish
the walls. These are the best preserved examples of painting in any Mughal
tomb. The motifs, borrowed from the vocabulary of mystical poetry, are
similar to those found on the interior of I c timad al-Daula’s tomb. While Sultan
Nisar Begum embellished this garden site ostensibly to honor her ill-fated
brother, in truth, the central position and beauty of her own tomb suggest that
her own glorification was also intended.

148

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 86. Interior, Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb, Allahabad

Eastern India

Chunar

Akbar’s fortress at Chunar, the gateway to eastern India, remained a Mughal
garrison, though no significant buildings were added there during Jahangir’s
reign. Elsewhere in Chunar, however, are two fine Jahangir-period buildings
constructed of stone from the Chunar quarries that had provided building
materials since the third century b.c. One, Shah Qasim Sulaiman’s dargah , not
far from the fort, was admired by British travelers and artists, although it is
rarely noticed today. The second, the tomb of Iftikhar Khan, is located several
kilometers from the town.

Shah Qasim Sulaiman, also known as Shaikh Qasim Qadiri, had attracted a
considerable following in Lahore, but supported Khusrau and as a result was
imprisoned in the Chunar fort. A year after his death in 1606, his followers
reputedly constructed his simple unadorned tomb. Its entrance gate (Plates 87
and 88), unusually refined and elegant, is far more impressive than the tomb
itself. This is, in part, due to the emphasis on height achieved by the balance
between the proportionately small entrance arch and the soaring pishtaq. The
screened walls surmounting the roof, the projecting battlement, and the corner
finials (guldasta) further accentuate the sense of height. The entire facade is

149

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 87. Gate, Shah Qasim Sulaiman’s dargah , Chunar

covered with superb carving that further enhances the structure’s refinement.
The jewel-like work, one of the best examples of Mughal carving in all eastern
India, is reminiscent of that on Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb, although here there
is considerably more detail.

Clearly a patron of considerable taste must have constructed the dargah gate.
In fact, it may have been the emperor himself, for tradition claims that Jahangir
eventually recognized the sanctity of Shah Sulaiman’s dargah and endowed
land for its support. Considering Khusrau’s popularity, Jahangir’s provision of
funds for this gate at the shrine of the deceased prince’s supporter would have
been one way for the emperor to absolve his role in Khusrau’s death and at the
same time maintain popular support.

On the outskirts of Chunar, in a village known as Serai Sikandarpur, is the
Chunar sandstone tomb of Iftikhar Khan, known locally as the Tahsildar
Daftar, or the Tahsildar’s Office (Plates 89 and 90). It is a striking monument,
though it lacks the prolific carving of the nearby dargah gate that was built
about the same time. In 1612 Iftikhar Khan, noted for his bravery in warfare,
died in Bengal. His association with Chunar remains unclear, although he
probably had a landholding there. The tomb is not dated, but an inscription of
1613-14 in a well just outside the compound’s sole entrance gate records the
construction of a building, almost surely the tomb, by Sikandar. Nothing is

150

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 88. Detail of gate

known about Sikandar, even though his name is memorialized by the site’s
current name. The well served as the water source for the garden in which the
tomb is set.

Iftikhar Khan’s tomb establishes a type that quickly becomes popular across
eastern India. Its entrance gate, similar in form to the one at the nearby dargah
of Shah Qasim Sulaiman, leads to the square-plan tomb situated on a high
plinth in the middle of the garden. Its central chamber is surrounded by a
veranda. In lieu of screened walls, as seen at the Akbar-period tombs of
Muhammad Ghaus in Gwalior or Salim Chishti at Fatehpur Sikri (Plates 2 6 and
42), here the veranda is left open. The tomb is surmounted by a single dome that
sits on a high square base; a chattri marks each corner of the roof. All these
features are adopted for a tomb-type that becomes especially popular in
eastern India.

Bihar : tombs at Maner and Champanagar

The second and most magnificent tomb of this type is at Maner, in Mughal
times at the confluence of the Son and Ganges rivers, about 25 km west of
Patna. There an important shrine known as the Bari Dargah had developed
around the grave of Yahya Maneri, the father of Sharaf al-Din Maneri, a
fourteenth-century mystic. Pre-Mughal sultans as well as Humayun and Akbar

1 5 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 89. Iftikhar Khan’s tomb, Chunar

had visited this shrine. Then, between 1605 and 1619, Ibrahim Khan Kakar,
whose title was Dilawar Khan, methodically enhanced this shrine and built
other structures in Maner, for example, an extensive khanqah . Tradition holds
that he was the disciple of Shah Daulat, a descendent and spiritual heir of Yahya
Maneri. His wealth probably came from landholdings, among them Jaunpur,
which was granted as his jagir in 1607, two years after he had constructed a
mosque in the Bari Dargah.

Ibrahim Khan Kakar’s most ambitious architectural endeavor was a second
shrine, the Chotti Dargah, built around the grave of his spiritual master (pir\
Shah Daulat, and housing a large tomb that follows the type established by
Iftikhar Khan’s tomb at Chunar (Plate 90). The Chunar sandstone complex is
the most magnificent Mughal mausoleum in eastern India. The compound’s
north entrance gate was built in 1613-14; three years later, in 1616-17, the main
tomb was finished; and the mosque and enclosure walls (actually never com-
pleted) were constructed in 1618-19. Linking this dargah to the Bari Dargah is
a large tank whose ghats (stepped embankments) are embellished with chattris .

The overall appearance of the elevated two-storied gate is fortress-like, but
its individual features are finely carved. So, too, is the three-bayed single-aisled
mosque, surmounted by a single truncated cloistered vault. Its east facade is

1 5 2

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 90. Plan of Iftikhar Khan’s tomb

highly articulated by numerous arched niches, although it is less ornate than the
entrance gate at Shah Qasim Sulaiman’s dargah.

Shah Daulat’s tomb (Plates 91 and 92), the first of its type in Bihar, is a
refined version of Iftikhar Khan’s tomb in Chunar, built three years earlier. It
is, moreover, taller and better proportioned. Like Iftikhar Khan’s tomb, this
one consists of a central square chamber surrounded by a continuous veranda.
It is also crowned by a single central dome and flanked at each corner by a
domed chattri. Overall, the tomb is embellished with well-executed inscrip-
tions and exquisitely carved floral and geometric patterns as well as fine stone
screens. This is the last major monument in all eastern India to be constructed

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 91. Shah Daulat’s tomb, also known as the Chotti Dargah, Maner

wholly in ashlar masonry; however, the tomb-type will be seen again in slightly
variant forms in both Bihar and Bengal, for example, in the tomb of Bibi
Maryam in Narayanganj (Dhaka District) and the tomb of Shamsher Khan in
Shamshernagar (Aurangabad District) (Plate 220). This tomb-type, like the
sandstone from which Shah Daulat’s mausoleum was constructed, was carried
eastward along the Ganges.

By contrast to the standard eastern Indian tomb-type established at Chunar
and enhanced at Maner, one tomb is different in its obvious use of pre-Mughal
Bengali features. This is the tomb of Makhdum Sahib at Champanagar, just
outside of Bhagalpur (Plate 93). This tomb, known as the Maskan-i Barari and
dated to 1622-23, was constructed by Khwaja Ahmad Samarqandi, a recently
appointed Mughal administrator. Characteristic of its pre-Mughal Bengali style
are the simple square form, the austere brick facade, and the curved cornice.
While the impact of pre-Mughal Bengali architecture is seen on buildings of
Bihar well into the late sixteenth century, for example the 1587 Jami c mosque
at Hajipur, the lack of Mughal traits on the tomb of Makhdum Sahib is unusual
considering the fact that there was a well-established Mughal tomb-type in
eastern India. That it was not used here is surprising because by now the
Mughals had long ruled Bihar. In fact, the very name of Prince Parviz appears
on this tomb’s inscription.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 92. Plan of Shah Daulat’s tomb

Bihar : Bihar Sharif

Bihar Sharif, the capital of pre-Mughal Bihar, remains today a site of consider-
able importance, since the saint Sharaf al-Din Maneri (d. 1381) is buried here.
Even though the town had diminished in administrative significance, Mughal
nobles continued to build there. Among them was Shaikh Farid Bukhari,
known for his patronage in Delhi, Lahore and Ahmadabad (Plate 76), who,
with his wife, provided the most notable Mughal building in Bihar Sharif. This
is the Bukhari mosque (Plate 94), completed on November 20, 1608. Epigraphs
indicate that Shaikh Lad, otherwise unknown, was responsible for the pro-
curement of the materials as well as for the supervision of the work. More

155

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 93. Tomb of Makhdum Sahib, also known as the Maskan-i Barari tomb,

Champanagar

important, they relate that the mosque was designed by Shaikh Farid himself,
noteworthy since he was not in Bihar when it was built. However, during
Akbar’s reign his family must have been associated with Bihar, for his brother
is buried in a grave dated 1583-84 close to Maner.

Although the mosque form derives in large part from that of the 1587 Jami c
mosque in Hajipur, at that time a highly localized type, it becomes the standard
for subsequent mosques across eastern India. This Bihar Sharif mosque is a
large single-aisled three-bayed rectangular structure surmounted by three
domes and marked at each corner by semi-engaged octagonal turrets. For more
than a century it served as the standard for mosques in Bihar and Bengal, for
example Mirza Ma c sum’s mosque (1614-16) in Patna and the mosque of Raja
Bahroz (1656-57) in Kharagpur (Plate 152).

The mosque’s patron, Shaikh Farid, is noted in Mughal texts for his
generous patronage of architecture throughout north India. His buildings,
however, were constructed during the few years between 1606 and 1609,
perhaps in thanksgiving for his newly bestowed title, Nawab Murtaza Khan,
invariably mentioned in the building’s inscriptions. Possibly, then, grateful for
his increased prestige under Jahangir, he took seriously the emperor’s accession
orders to build both serais and religious structures.

156

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 94. Bukhari mosque, Bihar Sharif

Bihar: Khurramabad and Sasaram

Although the role of construction by highly placed nobles such as Shaikh Farid
is mentioned in Mughal histories and biographies, much of the work in the
Mughal hinterlands remains unnoticed. Such is the case with an entire town
named Khurramabad, in honor of the then heir apparent, Prince Khurram, the
future Shah Jahan. According to an inscription on the east face of the towns
Jami c mosque, c Ali Akbar constructed here a bridge, mosque, serai, fort and
baths between 1612-13 an d l &i 7 - The Khurramabad bridge (Plate 95), used
until recently, is a smaller version of Raja Man Singh's bridge in Rajmahal and
an eleven-arched bridge in Delhi dated 1612. Of Akbar c Ali's other buildings
only the largely ruined mosque remains. It was a single-aisled three-bayed
structure whose central pishtaq , some 12 meters high, was flanked on either
side by bays with narrow arched entrances, revealing the influence of north
Indian Mughal buildings.

The date of Khurramabad's commencement, 1612, suggests that the town,
near the notorious dacoit-ridden Kaimar hills on the main road from Benares
to Sasaram and Rohtas, was built in response to Jahangir's accession order
issued some five years earlier. Peter Mundy, traveling through eastern India in
1632, twice mentions Khurramabad as a flourishing settlement constructed as
a residential headquarters for the landholder of Sasaram, situated about 20 km
to the east.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 95. Bridge, Khurramabad

At Sasaram is a mansion, or Qal c a as it is known today, a rare example of
Mughal residential architecture in the hinterlands. It is attributed to c Ali Akbar,
who according to local tradition was also known as Safdar Khan, the land-
holder of Sasaram in Jahangir’s period. The main building is three stories high.
The interior consists of a high central chamber almost certainly used as the
Diwan Khana, or main reception room. Surrounding this on all the floors were
ancillary chambers, many of which overlooked the central room. On the west
exterior facade is a large pishtaq , whose recessed arch is ornamented with
patterns on burnished stucco recalling Mughal decor elsewhere, for example,
Narnaul’s Jal Mahal. Surrounding this three-storied building are traces of a
single-storied flat-roofed gallery similar to the contemporary galleries of the
Chotti Dargah in Maner. This complex matches well the descriptions written
by European visitors of the housing for Mughal nobility in Agra or Delhi
during Shah Jahan’s reign and later. It thus suggests that the housing type of the
Mughal nobility was established before Shah Jahan’s reign and that this
particular dwelling was modeled on those constructed at the major centers.

Patna

In Patna, as in many cities that still retain their importance, very few buildings
of early Mughal date remain. The continuous process of urbanization has

158

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

PATRONAGE OF PRINCES AND NOBILITY

Plate 9 6. Central mihrab, Mirza Ma c sum’s Jami c mosque, Patna

replaced them. Only two early Mughal monuments in Patna are worthy of
comment, both characteristic of styles more widely seen in Bihar. The first is
Mirza Ma c sum’s mosque, inscribed as a Jami c mosque and constructed between
1614-15 and 1616-17. Mirza Ma c sum entered imperial service during Akbar’s
reign and then served in Bengal under Jahangir’s governor, Islam Khan.
Evidently Mirza Ma c sum left Bengal after Islam Khan’s death in 1613 and
retired to Patna, where he constructed a mosque and also a market.

Mirza Ma c sum’s mosque is a less refined version of Shaikh Farid Bukhari’s
mosque built in Bihar Sharif in 1608 (Plate 94). The engaged columns flanking
the central bay rise above the central pishtaq , a feature characteristic of many
mosques in Patna and elsewhere in eastern India. Net patterns rendered in
stucco appear in the central mihrab’s soffit (Plate 96) and again in the vaulting.
This is the earliest known use of net patterning in stucco on an eastern Indian
mosque, although the technique is seen earlier in parts of the Rohtas palace.

The second surviving Mughal monument in Patna is the Patthar-ki Masjid,
built by Nazar Khwishgi in 1626-27. Nazar Khwishgi is best known for his
stellar career under Shah Jahan, but during Jahangir’s reign he was a close
attendant of Prince Parviz, one of Jahangir’s sons. Parviz was governor of

159

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Bihar, but never actually went there; probably Nazar Khwishgi served as his
deputy. 33

The mosque’s east facade is stucco faced and adheres to the formula already
seen in all Mughal mosques in Bihar. The other three sides, however, are stone-
faced, nearly the last use of stone for a building’s facade in either Bengal or
Bihar. The stone is carved with small floral medallions and slender-necked wine
flasks, a motif seen on contemporary monuments at the center (Plates 72 and
83), but rarely in eastern India.

Bengal

Islam Khan, Jahangir’s governor of Bengal from 1609 to 1613, finally
terminated rebel activities that had plagued the Mughals in Bengal since
Akbar’s time. He moved the capital from Akbarnagar (Rajmahal) to Dhaka,
then named Jahangirnagar. Little remains of early seventeenth-century Dhaka
except some small river forts used against pirates, a constant threat to Mughal
authority.

Outside of Dhaka, the Jami c mosque at Atiya (Plate 97) in Tangail District,
Bangladesh, constructed in 1609, is the sole dated monument of Jahangir’s era
in all Bengal. This is the latest mosque here built in a pre-Mughal regional
idiom. It consists of a single-domed square prayer chamber with a triple-
domed veranda projecting on the east, suggesting that in areas away from
Mughal administrative centers there was little influence from the mainstream
Mughal architectural tradition.

The rebel prince Shah Jahan, in his quest for the Mughal throne, was well
aware of the continued weakness of imperial authority in Bengal. He marched
to Bengal in 1624, defeated Jahangir’s governor, and gained control of
Akbarnagar, long the key to Bengal. From this strategic vantage, the rebel
prince easily gained all Bengal and Bihar. While credit for re-establishing
Akbarnagar’s pre-eminence generally is given to Shah Shuja c , his father Shah
Jahan was initially responsible.

The memoirs of Mirza Nathan, a noble posted in Bengal since the early
seventeenth century and serving in the rebel prince Shah Jahan’s army, give
insight into several architectural projects of the time. Among these are a palace
at Akbarnagar and a new fort at Garhi. Today known as Teliagarhi, Garhi is
just 30 km northeast of Akbarnagar. The fort, situated at the traditional
approach to Bengal, was secured with stone walls. Mirza Nathan, charged
with erecting this fort, notes that a different officer was responsible for every
20 meters of the fortification walls, thus assuring their speedy completion. In
spite of this, the walls, constructed of alternating layers of local brown and
black stones, appear uniform. No royal palace, however, was built inside, since

33 Ahmad, Inscriptions of Bihar> pp. 223-26.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSTRUCTION BY THE HINDU NOBILITY

Plate 97. Jami c mosque, Atiya

the hasty construction of such an edifice, a contemporary stated, would alarm
the local population. In any event, all the available workers were already
engaged on the walls. John Marshall, an early agent with the East India
Company who visited the fort in 1761, reports that it was remarkably strong,
adequate for about eighty cannon and twice as many small guns and muskets.
Partially still standing, the fortifications remain as testimony to solid work-
manship in spite of speedy construction.

While Garhi was being built, the rebel prince Shah Jahan ordered
Muhammad Salih to construct a palace at Akbarnagar. Mirza Nathan describes
the palace, which no longer survives, as consisting of the following buildings:
a Private Audience Hall ( Ghusl Khana ), a Throne Room ( Takbt-i Daulat ),
quarters for the harem, a Public Audience Hall and a bath. They probably were
tent-constructed, not built of more durable materials, since he describes them
as easily rearranged.

CONSTRUCTION BY THE HINDU NOBILITY

Although Akbar’s reign is generally considered the period most tolerant of the
Hindu nobility, under Jahangir they also fared well. Hindu nobles built

161

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate 98. Jahangiri Mandir, Orchha

mansions, palaces and temples. And just as the houses and gardens built by the
Muslim nobility were considered state, not private, property, the same held
true for the Hindu amirs. For example, the Matiyaburj palace of Ram Das
Kachhwaha, a Hindu, was confiscated in 1612 when Jahangir became dis-
pleased with his performance in battle, indicating that the dwelling was
regarded as state property, not a personal investment to which the patron had
absolute right. 34

Construction on a watan jagir , an ancestral landholding of a vassal prince,
•seems to have been more secure. That land was generally left in the hands of
successive rulers, although the Mughal monarch occasionally ignored primo-
geniture and awarded the title raja if he believed another candidate was more
suitable. During Jahangir's reign there is no better example of patronage in a
watan jagir than that of Raja Bir Singh Deo in his territory of Orchha in
Bundelkhand. Bir Singh's rise commenced in 1602, when at the future
Jahangir's request the raja killed Abu al-Fazl. In 1623, after steady advance-
ment, Jahangir awarded him the title maharaja (great prince), the first time this
was bestowed as an official Mughal title. 35 The raja died in 1627, the same year
as his patron, Jahangir.

34 B. P. Ambastha, Non-Persian Sources on Indian Medieval History (Delhi, 1984), p. 127.

35 Tuzxk, 1: 24-25; 1 1: 253.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSTRUCTION BY THE HINDU NOBILITY

Plate 99. Bir Singh’s palace, Datia

Although Jahangir makes no reference to Bir Singh’s building activities,
chronicles of Shah Jahan’s time praise the works he constructed. Among these,
the most notable are his palace at Datia and an addition known as the Jahangiri
Mandir to the earlier sixteenth-century palaces at Orchha. The Jahangiri
Mandir (Plate 98) is a square-plan structure measuring 67 meters per side.
Impressively high, it is surmounted by chattris. The interior consists of three
stories arranged around a large open courtyard, similar to the zenana at the
palace Raja Man Singh built at Rohtas. Many of the interior walls are magnifi-
cently painted with scenes from Hindu lore as well as courtly figures based in
large measure on Mughal types.

The palace Raja Bir Singh constructed at Datia, about 30 km northeast of
Orchha, was built about 1620. This square-plan building, situated on a rocky
outcrop, dominates the terrain (Plate 99). The five-storied palace, rising to a
height of 40 meters, has a layout similar to that of contemporary Rajput royal
dwellings, but many of the motifs that adorn it belong to a characteristic
Mughal vocabulary. Its multi-storied chambers are arranged around a central
courtyard, a plan like that at the Orchha Jahangiri Mandir. Here, however, a
pavilion at the courtyard’s center is linked to each wing by double-storied
corridors, thus dividing the palace’s courtyard into four units, recalling the

163

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

arrangement of a char bagh. Most of the palace’s chambers are trabeated,
although some of the ceilings are vaulted and bear traces in stucco of net
patterning typical in Jahangir-period architecture (Plates 60, 62 and 85).

Also revealing the influence of imperial Jahangir architecture are the motifs
painted on the stucco. These are rendered in a Persianized manner similar to
motifs on the walls of Sultan Nisar Begum’s tomb dated 1624-25 (Plate 85). On
the spandrels and sides of a high arched niche that towers over the main
entrance are fine paintings (Plate 100). There, in addition to the centrally placed
figure of the elephant-headed god Ganesh, found at the entrance to many
Hindu dwellings, are subjects more characteristic of Mughal painting:
geometric patterns, horses and riders, wine vessels and nobles.

At Orchha Bir Singh constructed an enormous temple, today known as the
Chaturbhuj. Although it was partially demolished under Shah Jahan in
response to considerable political difficulties the Mughals were having there, it
remains well preserved. The temple’s interior is domed and arcuated, possibly
inspired by Raja Man Singh’s Govind Deva temple of 1 590 at Brindavan. Close
to Brindavan, at Mathura, Bir Singh built another temple, known as the
Keshava Deva temple, dismantled at the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign. It was
constructed of red Sikri stone at a cost of 33 million rupees, an enormous sum.
The Frenchman Tavernier relates that the temple was very large and sump-
tuous, visible from a distance of 16 km. The sanctum of this temple, too, was
probably influenced by Raja Man Singh’s Govind Deva temple at Brindavan.
On the temple’s walls was a profusion of carved images, a feature lacking at the
earlier Govind Deva temple.

Under Jahangir, just as under his father, rank and favor appear to have played
a much larger role than sectarian affiliation in determining who built major
structures. Moreover, building temples in the Mathura-Brindavan region, an
area not far from the imperial seat at Agra, appears to have been one way that
Hindus who were part of the Mughal administrative system could display their
status and wealth. This did not go unnoticed, for Jahangir comments on the
beauty of Brindavan’s temples. Moreover, a considerable number of those in
Brindavan were the beneficiary of imperial grants. 36 Among those the emperor
probably admired were the temple complex of Madan Mohan and the Jugal
Kishore temple (Plate 101). Each is constructed of Sikri sandstone and with
features adhering to a Mughal idiom.

Unlike north Indian temples reflecting current Mughal taste, temples con-
structed in Bengal assumed an increasingly regional character. Among these is

36 Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, “Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and its Environs,”
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 48th Session (Panajim, Goa, 1988), 242-43, and the same
authors’ “The Mughal Administration and the Temples of Vrindavan during the Reigns of Jahangir
and Shahjahan,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 49th Session (Dharwad, 1989),
287-89.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONSTRUCTION BY THE HINDU NOBILITY

Plate ioo. Entrance, Bir Singh’s palace, Datia

a type known as bangala , probably modeled on the curved roofs of Bengali
huts, which is pertinent to the subsequent development of Mughal architecture
(Plates 1 1 3, 1 19 and 175). Although this building type only survives in BengaPs
temples, it was probably used in domestic settings as well. These temples are
rectangular in plan and surmounted by curved roofs described as bangala , for
example the Gopinath temple in Pabna, dated 1607. Such temples were not
limited to Bengal, but are found also in the eastern portions of Bihar, adjacent
to Bengal, for example, the Raja Rani temple (Plate 102) in Kharagpur (Munger
District). Built by the Kharagpur rajas before their conversion to Islam in
Jahangir’s reign, 37 temples of this sort would have been known to the rebel
prince Shah Jahan from the period that he spent in nearby Rajmahal. Later in
Shah Jahan’s period, as we shall see, rectangular-plan structures with bangala
roofs are adopted in imperial palace structures, especially those associated with
public viewing chambers.

37 Ahmad, Inscriptions of Bihar , p. 256.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Plate ioi. Jugal Kishore temple, Brindavan

CONCLUSION

Jahangir had considerably more interest in architecture than is commonly
believed. He constructed extensively - palaces, hunting lodges and tombs -
although hardly any religious buildings, despite his devotion to Mu c in al-Din.
Under Jahangir, Mughal architecture shows considerable continuity as the
concepts mature. Thus, for example, paradisical imagery associated with
funereal settings, first seen in Akbar’s architecture, is developed in the tomb
Jahangir constructed for his father. Also, like Akbar, Jahangir used architecture
to imply the ruler’s semi-divine status, foreshadowing developments under his
son and successor, Shah Jahan. This we see both in tile and painted ornament
on surviving buildings, for example, the Kala Burj in the Lahore fort, as well as
in paintings illustrating the emperor enthroned. In addition, Jahangir, like his
grandfather, Babur, was concerned not only with the building itself but also
with its setting. Buildings such as his Chesma-i Nur are architecturally
uninspiring but spectacularly situated.

1 66

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CONCLUSION

Plate 102. Raja Rani temple, Kharagpur

Many aspects of Jahangir’s architectural style have strong roots in the build-
ings of Akbar. They are not, however, always the roots one might expect.
Tombs, for example those Jahangir built for Akbar and Shah Begum, are not
based on older Timurid-inspired tomb-types but rather on Akbar’s multi-
storied palace pavilions. The few surviving palaces Jahangir constructed, on the
other hand, are modeled on older palace types, such as Akbar’s trabeated
pavilions at Fatehpur Sikri, even continuing the dominant use of red sandstone.
Now though, surfaces are at times more highly articulated, and white marble,
previously used only for tombs at the shrines of saints, was introduced for
palace architecture. This sets the stage for the substantially more extensive use
of white marble under Shah Jahan.

Despite the fact that most of Jahangir’s residential architecture - his forts,
palaces and hunting pavilions - is trabeated, Timurid building techniques were
not altogether rejected during his reign. The Kala Burj, for example, reveals an
elaborately vaulted interior as does the tomb Sultan Nisar Begum built for
herself in Allahabad near the end of Jahangir’s reign. Buildings such as those
constructed in Jahangir’s reign explain the persistence of Timurid forms into
the reign of Shah Jahan, where they surface most clearly and magnificently in
the world-famous Taj Mahal.

The emperor was not the only trend setter, for his favorite wife, Nur Jahan,
was a leading arbitrator of taste. She built elegant serais, gardens and an

167

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

exquisite white marble tomb whose inlay and motifs foreshadow developments
in Shah Jahan’s reign. Her dynamic interest in construction stimulated a
similar interest by court women in subsequent reigns.

Jahangir not only encouraged the nobility to build, especially in the hinter-
lands, but also often rewarded them by advancement in rank. If in Akbar’s
period architecture at the frontier was often a symbol of Mughal power, in
Jahangir’s reign it was an indication of genuine presence, serving permanent
populations as well as encouraging trade across the empire. Hindu rajas, also
members of the Mughal nobility, built palaces on their ancestral lands that
incorporated trends at the Mughal court. The styles of all these structures, as in
Akbar’s time, introduced new aesthetics to the provinces, ones that usually
echoed contemporary tastes in the major cities of Agra and Lahore.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

CHAPTER 5

SHAH JAHAN AND THE
CRYSTALLIZATION OF MUGHAL STYLE

Shah Jahan, Jahangir’s third son, emerged victorious in the power struggle that
developed after Jahangir’s death and assumed the Mughal throne in 1628. His
thirty-year reign is dominated by an outward sense of prosperity and stability
unmatched even during Akbar’s rule. At the same time, almost every aspect of
courtly culture became increasingly formalized. Shah Jahan was portrayed as
an aloof ideal king. Official histories thus present him as a just leader and
staunch upholder of orthodox Islam, but they give little insight into the
emperor’s personal thoughts. Yet Shah Jahan’s unreserved preference for Dara
Shukoh, his eldest son, an eclectic mystic thinker, suggests other aspects of this
ruler’s character never alluded to in court histories. The painted image of Shah
Jahan parallels the literary one. The emperor is portrayed in an idealized
manner - while he ages over time, his features remain flawless. His inner
character is never revealed. Rather, his role as semi-divine king of the world, a
play on his name, is the focus of each portrait. His face is always surrounded
by a halo, as in late representations of Jahangir. In some of these illustrations
the metaphoric nature of the king’s semi-divine and just quality is taken so far
as to show small angels above his head, often crowning him, while at his feet are
the lion and the lamb of peace. Even more than light imagery, paradisical
imagery now evolves from verbal to visual forms, particularly in Shah Jahan’s
architecture.

Best known for his construction of the Taj Mahal, Shah Jahan was the
greatest patron of Mughal architecture. The sums expended on his tombs,
palaces, hunting pavilions, gardens and entire planned cities is extraordinary
even by modern standards. Just as the literary and painted image of Shah Jahan
became increasingly ceremonial and formal, so his architecture, much of it
meant to serve as an imperial setting, assumed an air of formality unpre-
cedented in earlier Mughal structures. The use of white marble inlaid with
stones, noted during the later portion of Jahangir’s reign, characterizes much of
Shah Jahan’s architectural production. His buildings appear increasingly
refined, establishing a style that became an Indian classic.

SHAH JAHAN’S RULE

The future Shah Jahan, Prince Khurram, was the favorite of his grandfather
Akbar and of his own father Jahangir. Schooled by renowned scholars and

169

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

religious thinkers, Khurram revealed a quick mind and good memory,
although both father and grandfather were disappointed in his shallow mastery
of Turki, Babur’s native tongue. The prince did, however, excel in the martial
arts. Unlike his father, Prince Khurram possessed great military prowess and
was responsible for the major victories of Jahangir’s reign. It was, for example,
Khurram who had waged successful campaigns against Rana Amar Singh of
Mewar and in the Deccan. In honor of his success in the Deccan, Jahangir
bestowed upon the prince the title Shah Jahan (King of the World).

Jahangir recognized his son’s military and administrative capabilities and so
treated Shah Jahan as his heir apparent until about 1622. Then Nur Jahan
realized that the prince was too independent to carry out her schemes and so
convinced the emperor to support Shahriyar, her own son-in-law. Shah Jahan
rebelled, establishing himself as an independent ruler in eastern India with
Rajmahal as his headquarters. However, within three years, the prince again
acknowledged Jahangir’s authority.

At the time of Jahangir’s death late in 1627, Shah Jahan had active, powerful
supporters at court, most notable among them, Asaf Khan. With his help all
rivals for the throne were eliminated and early in 1628 Shah Jahan was crowned
emperor in the Agra fort. Adopting lofty titles, he proclaimed himself not only
the King of the World, but also the Meteor of the Faith, a role he took
seriously. He termed himself the Lord of the Auspicious Conjunctions, a title
borrowed from Timur, for, like his predecessors, he was proud of his Timurid
heritage. He had genealogies painted illustrating his links with Timurid
ancestors, and, as we shall see, the Taj Mahal is modeled on Timurid buildings
or at least on structures influenced by Timurid architecture.

Under Shah Jahan Islamic orthodoxy increased. For example, like Akbar and
Jahangir, Shah Jahan often visited the tomb of Mu c in al-Din Chishti in Ajmer.
But unlike Akbar, who later abandoned the pilgrimage to Ajmer, and Jahangir,
who never returned to the shrine once he left Ajmer as his residence, Shah Jahan
paid homage to the saint at Ajmer until the end of his reign. Official histories
indicate that the construction of Hindu temples was in some cases forbidden
and a few earlier ones were dismantled, leading some to argue that Shah Jahan
was intolerant of other religions. Even the percentage of high-ranking Hindu
nobles decreased. Thus Islam took on an importance as never before in Mughal
India, although it is difficult to say whether Shah Jahan himself was more
orthodox than his predecessors.

The empire inherited by Shah Jahan was by early modern standards a stable
one; however, unlike his father, Jahangir, Shah Jahan was interested in terri-
torial expansion. The most consuming campaigns were those in the Deccan and
in territories to the northwest, including the Timurid homelands of Balkh and
beyond. The conquest and consolidation of the Deccan presented problems
that continued into the next reign. By the end of his rule, Shah Jahan recognized

170

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

that the Mughal conquest of Timurid homelands was not feasible. While events
in the Deccan, with the exception of his favorite wife’s death there in 1631, had
little impact on his architectural patronage, Shah Jahan’s frequent journeys to
the northwest, including Lahore, Kashmir and Kabul, inspired construction.

Internal rebellions, largely headed by vassal chieftains who wished to assert
their independence from the Mughal empire, also disrupted but did not
debilitate Shah Jahan’s empire. Among the rebels was the successor of Bir Singh
Deo, the raja of Bundelkhand. He was adequately subversive that Prince
Aurangzeb was forced to intervene. Aurangzeb wrote his father about the
palaces of Datia and Orchha, built during Akbar’s and Jahangir’s reign, and
inspired him to visit them. En route, Shah Jahan stopped at Bari, a hunting
resort that he came to love and there constructed a palace. While at Orchha, he
ordered the destruction of a temple, not an iconoclastic act, but one intended
to demonstrate his authority.

In 1657, Shah Jahan became so ill that those around him believed he had
little time to live. His four sons - Murad, Shah Shuja c , Aurangzeb and
Dara Shukoh, the king’s favored heir apparent - vied for the crown. Each
proclaimed himself emperor, for in the Timurid tradition succession was
not based on primogeniture, but on cunning and strength. Shah Jahan
recovered fully within a month, but the war of succession already was well
under way. Prince Aurangzeb emerged victorious, and to insure his position
he had his brothers and their sons imprisoned or murdered. Proclaiming
his father incompetent to rule, Aurangzeb declared himself Mughal emperor
in 1658. Shah Jahan survived for another seven years, imprisoned inside
the Agra fort in one of his own palaces that overlooked his most famous
creation, the Taj Mahal. Dying in 1666, Shah Jahan was buried there next to his
wife.

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Shah Jahan 5 patronage as a prince

By 1628, when Shah Jahan ascended the throne, he already had shown con-
siderable interest in the construction of architecture and gardens. By the age of
sixteen, the future Shah Jahan had built quarters that greatly impressed Jahangir
inside Babur’s Kabul fort, 1 and redesigned buildings inside the Agra fort. Also
while a prince, Shah Jahan built the Shahi Bagh in Ahmadabad (Plates 74 and
75), a building characteristic of Jahangir’s time. After forcing the Udaipur rana
to submit to Mughal authority, he constructed buildings on a hill in Udaipur in

1 Tiizuk , 1: 1 1 5; Muhammad Salih Kanbo, c Amal-i Salih y 3 vols. (Lahore, 1967), 1: 37-39. Henceforth
cited as Kanbo.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

1 613. 2 The prince’s dwelling was near the summit. Below it the nobles built
their own houses, the higher their rank, the closer to the imperial seat. Thus,
early in his career, Shah Jahan revealed an interest in the organization of an
entire imperial entourage. Near Burhanpur in the Deccan Shah Jahan built a
fine hunting resort on an artificial lake he created by adding a second dam to
one constructed before his time. 3 Even earlier he had commenced construction
of the renowned Shalimar garden in Kashmir. Shah Jahan deeply loved
Shalimar garden and in 1634, after his coronation, further embellished the
site.

Imperial tombs in Lahore

Several events that occurred around the time of Shah Jahan’s coronation relate
directly to his subsequent patronage of architecture. These include the con-
struction of Jahangir’s tomb, a vow to construct a mosque at the shrine of
Mu c in al-Din Chishti in Ajmer, and finally an order to build the Public Audi-
ence Halls at the Lahore and Agra forts. Shah Jahan’s construction at the Ajmer
shrine and at the forts is described in detail by contemporary historians. By
contrast, Jahangir’s tomb is scarcely mentioned. Lahauri, Shah Jahan’s official
chronicler during the part of his reign when the tomb was built, does not
discuss its construction but only mentions its forecourt, while Kanbo, a
contemporary historian, describes the tomb and notes that it took ten years to
build. Compared to the lengthy descriptions of other imperial projects, the
brief reference to Jahangir’s tomb suggests that the tension between father and
son was never fully resolved in Shah Jahan’s mind. It also suggests that Shah
Jahan had little personal involvement in its planning and execution, unlike
many of his other architectural projects.

Jahangir died in Rajauri while en route from Lahore to Kashmir. Because the
terrain there was unsuitable for a large mausoleum, his body was carried to
Lahore and buried in Nur Jahan’s garden on the banks of the Ravi. The
mausoleum (Plate 103), centered in a char bagh covering 55 acres, is entered
through large gates on the north and south. The southern gate, today serving as
the tomb’s main entrance, is faced with red Sikri sandstone and profusely inlaid
with white marble, recalling the less elaborate gates at Ltimad al-Daula’s
1626-28 tomb in Agra.

The mausoleum today consists of a single-storied platform about 84 meters
square. At each corner is a towering minaret. Like the entrance gates, the
tomb’s red sandstone surface is decorated with white inlay depicting vessels
and flower vases. Chevron patterns in white and pink stone embellish the
minarets. The crypt is within the platform, reached by long corridors that

2 Kanbo, 1: 60-61. 3 Kanbo, i: 328.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 103. Jahangir’s tomb, Lahore

extend from each of the four sides. It contains the marble cenotaph inlaid with
black in lettering giving the year of Jahangir’s death and the ninety-nine names
of God. Floral arabesques cover the top of the platform upon which the ceno-
taph rests. This cenotaph thus is similar to the one at the tomb of Mumtaz
Mahal, known as the Taj Mahal and built at the same time.

While the tomb today has no second story, originally marble screens
enclosed a second cenotaph. The platform atop the large square first story
still exists; even in the nineteenth century there were regularly placed oblong
indentations for the placement of posts, and marks on the platform indicated
that there had been a trellised screen. Some believe that this screened enclosure
was surmounted by a roof, like that at I c timad al-Daula’s tomb (Plate 71).
However, Jahangir, before dying, had requested a tomb that would be open to
the air, like Babur’s, so that it could be directly exposed to God’s mercy.
Kanbo, who lived in Lahore and doubtless had seen the tomb, confirms that the
cenotaph was uncovered.

Just west of the char bagh containing the mausoleum is a large rectangular
enclosure wall that was completed in 1637. According to Lahauri, this quad-
rangle, today known as the Akbari Serai, served as a forecourt ( chowk-i jilo
khana ) to the tomb. It was here that horses, weapons and other items were left
before their owners went to pay homage to the deceased king. Thus, during the
Mughal period, this quadrangle must have served as the main entrance. On the

x 73

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

quadrangle’s west wall is a single-aisled three-bayed mosque. Its central portal,
considerably higher than the flanking ones, as well as the exaggerated height of
the three entrance arches, give the mosque an archaic appearance, recalling the
Akbar-period mosque at Ajmer (Plate 40) more than contemporary imperial
mosques, for example, Shah Jahan’s mosque at the Ajmer shrine (Plate 105). No
part of this mosque at the tomb shows the elegance generally associated with
Shah Jahan’s architecture, suggesting that he paid no more personal attention
to its form than he did to other parts of Jahangir’s tomb.

West of the tomb’s forecourt a tomb was built on Shah Jahan’s order for Nur
Jahan’s brother, Asaf Khan, who died in 1641. 4 Asaf Khan’s lineage was
impeccable. Not only was he Nur Jahan’s brother and the father of Shah
Jahan’s favorite wife, but also he was the emperor’s closest adviser. Today only
the brick shell of his octagonal tomb remains. The white marble that had been
ordered for the dome and interior have been stripped away. The recessed
entrance arches, however, bear multi-colored glazed tiles.

Although not constructed by Shah Jahan, the former empress, Nur Jahan,
built her own tomb in close proximity to Jahangir’s. She died in 1645, having
survived her husband, Jahangir, by eighteen years. Despite the generous yearly
allowance Shah Jahan granted to Nur Jahan, the relationship between this once
formidable queen and Shah Jahan remained strained. Her tomb was modeled
closely on the mausolea of her father and husband. The building is pierced by
seven arched openings on each side. Today there is no second story, but it
probably consisted of a roofless screened enclosure. Stripped of its original red
sandstone and white marble facing, the tomb recently has been restored.

Ajmer: dargah and city

Ajmer and its premier shrine had special significance for Shah Jahan, as it had
for his Mughal predecessors. It was here that the prince Shah Jahan’s victory
over the rana of Mewar was celebrated. That victory inspired patronage of
buildings, including work at the shrine of Mu c in al-Din Chishti and the
imperial residence.

In January, 1628 Shah Jahan encamped in Jahangir’s palace on the Ana Sagar,
which then consisted of a garden and a marble building. Shah Jahan then must
have ordered extra buildings, for when he visited Ajmer next in December 1636
he saw his own newly constructed additions. Among these was a ceremonial
viewing balcony (jharoka-i daulat khana khass o c amm ), part of the Public
Audience Hall.

While virtually nothing remains of Jahangir’s garden and structures on the
banks of the Ana Sagar, several white marble pavilions built by Shah Jahan on

4 Kanbo, 11: 280-90.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 104. Pavilions on Ana Sagar, Ajmer

the lake’s stone embankment do survive. These structures, known today as
baradaris , were part of Shah Jahan’s palace at Ajmer, considerably more refined
and elegant than any of Jahangir’s buildings there.

The buildings represent only a small portion of the original complex. Only
four of these white marble pavilions, all trabeated structures, are still standing.
A fifth has been dismantled, but was distinct from the others. These five
pavilions almost certainly were intended for imperial use, since Mughal palace
buildings overlooking water had an exclusively imperial function, while those
structures increasingly distant from the shore - none of which remain at the
Ana Sagar palace - were intended for others in the royal retinue. Probably the
Private Audience Hall was located in close proximity to the shore, but the
Public Audience Hall and its ceremonial viewing balcony, mentioned in con-
temporary texts, was probably located in a separate quadrangle, away from the
structures intended exclusively for imperial use.

The two pavilions furthest south (Plate 104), similar in appearance, face each
other and were conceived together. These trabeated structures are supported
by faceted columns with multi-lobed brackets all carved in white marble. They
are more refined versions of sandstone buildings constructed by Akbar and
Jahangir (Plates 28, 59, 63 and 64). The other two pavilions are rather different,
for one opens toward the lake and the other onto the embankment. The pillars

175

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 105. Jami c mosque, Ajmer

of the second pavilion divide it into two distinct concentric spaces, recalling the
plan of buildings that Akbar had designed specifically for his own use.

It was the Jamb mosque (Plate 105), built within the famed Chishti dargah
to the west of Mu c in al-Din’s tomb, that Shah Jahan himself felt to be his most
significant act of patronage in Ajmer. Constructed entirely of white marble,
quarried in nearby Makrana, this mosque remains even today the finest
building at the shrine. A rectangular structure measuring 45 by 7.5 meters, the
mosque is divided into two aisles by slender pillars. The central mihrab (Plate
106) is a deeply recessed tri-partite arched niche with stellate and net vaulting.
Its fine appearance inspired later works in the city (Plate 137).

The east facade consists of eleven equal-sized arched openings supported on
slender piers. These are not true arches, but brackets that meet at the center.
This is not a new technique but one seen earlier on Akbar’s Jamb mosque at
Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 25). The smooth flowing lines of these entrance arches
combined with the white marble give the structure a sophisticated yet pristine
appearance often associated with the classicism of Shah Jahan’s age. The
mosque’s appearance foreshadows the Jamb mosque Shah Jahan built in 1653
inside the Agra fort (Plate 1 1 5).

Beneath the eaves on the mosque’s east facade is a lengthy Persian inscription
that gives the date of completion, 1637-38. In addition it states that Shah Jahan,

176

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate io 6. Mihrab, Jami c mosque, Ajmer

when a prince, had resolved to build a mosque at the shrine of Mu c in al-Din
Chishti in thanksgiving for his second victory over the rana of Mewar in 1615.
Because of his devotion to this esteemed saint, the inscription continues, Shah
Jahan ordered the construction of a mosque compatible with the tomb’s
design. 5 The mosque was built without a dome, insuring that the saint’s tomb
remained the shrine’s dominant building.

The inscription further states that Shah Jahan ordered the mosque since there
was none aligned with the mausoleum. The mosque’s location thus would
allow Shah Jahan during prayer to be positioned auspiciously between the qibla
of the mosque and the saint’s tomb. Finally, the imagery used throughout the
inscription compares the mosque to the Kaaba in Mecca, the most sacred mon-
ument in Islam. While such imagery is not innovative, the presence of such a
lengthy inscription on a Mughal mosque’s facade is unusual and, as we shall see,
is the first among several that will become standard on Shah Jahan’s religious
structures. Like the mosque’s appearance, the imagery of its inscription antici-
pates that used in the epigraph of the Agra fort’s Jami c mosque.

5 Kanbo, 1: 182-83.

1 77

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Although the orders for this mosque were issued in January 1628, shortly
before Shah Jahan ascended the throne, it took about nine years to complete.
This can be explained by the death of Shah Jahan’s favorite wife in 1631 and the
subsequent construction of her tomb, the Taj Mahal, which diverted resources
and energy. The mosque’s inscription is dated 1637-38, but most of the struc-
ture must have been completed by the time of the king’s visit in December,
1636. 6 At that time, Shah Jahan approached the shrine on foot, as his father and
grandfather had done earlier, distributing large sums of money. Shah Jahan
visited the shrine two more times. One was in 1643, when he ordered the
preparation of food for the poor in the enormous caldrons, or digs, given to the
shrine by his father, Jahangir. His last visit was in 1654, when he paid homage
to the saint on three separate occasions, always approaching the shrine on foot.
In that year, he ordered the construction of a large gateway for the shrine to
commemorate his subjugation of a troublesome raja. 7 The gate was completed
one year later, in 1655. Visible from the road, it serves as the first entrance into
the shrine, in front of the much taller gate built earlier. This gate is marked by
a pointed ogee arch in the high central pishtaq , conforming to the gate which
looms above.

The renovation of palace and city

Shah Jahan constructed and renovated forts throughout his reign. For example,
he continued to build at the Agra fort long after he shifted his capital to Delhi.
However, most of the construction at his Lahore and Agra forts was done in
about the first decade of his rule. By contrast, his entire Delhi (Shahjahanabad)
fort was executed after 1639. All three of these major projects have striking
similarities reflecting continuing Mughal practice. Perhaps the most notable
was placing imperial chambers at the fort’s far end overlooking a river. This
practice was established certainly by Akbar’s reign and probably as early as
Babur’s. Although the Agra and Lahore forts were constructed concurrently,
they each have individual personalities and merit separate discussion.

Shortly after his accession, Shah Jahan ordered renovations at the Agra and
Lahore forts, then the two most important ones. These are but two examples of
Shah Jahan’s continual effort to improve existing fortified palaces. In addition
new buildings were added to Akbar’s and Jahangir’s structures in the Gwalior
fort, 8 but it was little used by the king and served primarily, as it had earlier, as
an important prison. The Kabul fort was Shah Jahan’s residence during the
unsuccessful campaigns to consolidate territory originally part of the Timurid

6 Kanbo, n: 175-77.

7 W. E. Begley, Monumental Islamic Calligraphy from India (Villa Park, Illinois, 1985), p. 1 14.

8 Kanbo, 1: 404-05.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

homeland. The emperor’s commitment of a half million rupees for work there
in 1646 included the construction of several buildings for ceremonial and
administrative use, though none of them remains. 9 An identical amount was
expended for strengthening the fort of Qandahar between 1648 and 1653 under
the supervision of c Ali Mardan Khan. Improvement here was to prevent the
fort’s capture by the Safavids. 10

Lahore

Lahore remained the most important Mughal city after Agra until 1648, when
the new imperial capital, Shahjahanabad, surpassed them both. Shah Jahan’s
additions to the Lahore fort commenced in 1628, the year of his coronation,
continuing through 1645. Here, as elsewhere, he was personally involved in
establishing the forms for his architecture. He first ordered a Chehil Sutun, or
forty-pillared Public Audience Hall. Until its construction, cloth canopies had
protected courtiers from the elements when paying homage to the emperor.
Although this hall is similar to a better preserved one built concurrently at the
Agra fort, it is less elaborate.

About the time Shah Jahan built the Lahore fort’s Public Audience Hall, he
completed the courtyard containing a tower then known as the Shah Burj,
today called the Musamman Burj. It had been commenced under Jahangir, but
Shah Jahan was dissatisfied with the appearance of this tower, situated at the
fort’s northwest corner. Asaf Khan, Shah Jahan’s father-in-law and the brother
of Nur Jahan, was assigned to oversee the reconstruction, for he more than any
other noble understood the emperor’s taste. Asaf Khan presented the emperor
with several plans, and Shah Jahan himself made the final decision, under-
scoring the personal role that this fifth Mughal emperor usually played in the
development of his own architecture.

The entrance to the Shah Burj quadrangle, known today as the Elephant gate,
is a large tile-covered brick structure. It was completed in 1631-32 by c Abd
al-Karim, also known as Ma c mur Khan, who had designed the Lahore fort’s
Daulat Khana-i Jahangiri in 1617. The same architect also was probably
responsible for the exterior tiled walls built largely in Jahangir’s reign adjacent
to this gate (Plate 61). This would explain the stylistic homogeneity.

The Shah Burj originally overlooked the river, whose course now has
changed. Its white marble buildings, like their counterparts at Shah Jahan’s
palaces elsewhere, overlook the water and were reserved for the emperor and
his family. Among the most impressive is the Shish Mahal (Plate 107). This
name is a modern one, deriving from the mirrors, known in Mughal texts as
Aleppo glass, that are inlaid into the walls and on the ceiling, thus creating a
shimmering effect. Such chambers were even more impressive when filled with

9 Kanbo, n: 392, 419. 10 Kanbo, iii: 61-62.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 107. Pavilion within the Shah Burj, known today

as the Shish Mahal, Lahore fort, Lahore

the lighted lamps so often mentioned in contemporary texts. The central
portion of this pavilion’s facade is composed of five cusped marble arches
supported on faceted double marble pillars whose bases are inlaid with
precious stones. This and a similar pavilion erected about the same time in the
Agra fort indicates the emperor’s predilection for highly ornate personal
chambers.

A small rectangular marble pavilion, known today as the Naulakha (Plate
108), is on the west side of the quadrangle. This exquisitely carved marble
building inlaid with stones is generally considered Shah Jahan’s, but it may be
a later addition. Originally it was covered by a deeply curved sloping roof. Such
sloping roofs (bangala) were derived in part from the indigenous tradition of
Bengal, where Shah Jahan as a rebel prince had spent much time, and in part
from the baldachin coverings seen in European illustrations, associated during
his reign with religious and royal images. 11 These curved roofs were first
used in Mughal architecture by Shah Jahan and are associated with imperial

11 See E. Koch, Shah Jahan and Orpheus (Graz, 1988), p. 14.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 108. Pavilion within the Shah Burj, known today as the Naulakha, Lahore fort,

Lahore

presence. Probably this roof, like similar ones in the Agra fort, was of gilded
metal (Plate 1 13). The west facade, overlooking the fortification walls, bears a
central arched bay composed of exquisitely carved marble screens; three
rectangular windows in the screen possibly served as the jharoka , the window
through which the king daily presented himself to the public. In the Agra fort
is a similar structure constructed about the same time; it is designated by Shah
Jahan’s court historian as the public viewing window. 12 Enhancing the image of
the king’s daily appearances at the Naulakha are the glazed tiles illustrating
angels leading jinns, Solomonic images of kingship, made of tile mosaic on the
spandrels of the arches directly below the openings. This marble pavilion is
situated close to the Elephant gate, whose inscription commences with lines
that describe Shah Jahan as a Solomon in Grandeur. 13

Later, in 1645, the emperor visited the Lahore fort, inspecting a new palace
that overlooked the river, and, as he did frequently, indicated changes to be
made. Although this new palace is not further identified, it was probably the
white marble structure today known as the Diwan-i Khass, or Private

12 Lahauri in Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra Fort and its Buildings,” Annual Report of the Archaeological
Survey of India, 1903-04 (Calcutta, 1906), 180.

13 Nur Bakhsh, “Historical Notes on the Lahore Fort,” 221.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Audience Hall. Its interior consists of two concentric rectangular areas. This
plan and the use of white marble, as we have seen at Ajmer, suggest that the
building was intended for Shah Jahan’s own use.

The fort’s white marble mosque, known as the Moti or Pearl mosque, is
probably the product of Shah Jahan’s patronage, although it is not mentioned
in any contemporary source. It is less elegant than his mosque at Ajmer, but the
cusped arches that meet at acanthus leaf apexes, engaged baluster columns on
the east facade, and white marble are all features associated with many of Shah
Jahan’s buildings. The smooth lines of the interior piers, coupled with the
uniformity of the cusped arches, yield a formal crystallized appearance in
keeping with the official image of Shah Jahan rendered in imperial chronicles,
poetry and paintings.

Agra fort

Shah Jahan dismantled nearly all the structures that Akbar and Jahangir had
built inside the Agra fort. He replaced them with white marble and stucco-
covered buildings, all contained in walled quadrangles. With the exception of
the mosque known today as the Moti mosque, which was not completed until
1653, Shah Jahan commenced his other structures in the Agra fort as early as
1628, his first regnal year, and completed them by the beginning of 1637, when
he first used them for ceremonial purposes. As at Shah Jahan’s other palaces,
the buildings reserved solely for the emperor are made of white marble and
overlook the river, while the others he built, for example the Moti mosque and
the Public Audience Hall, are away from the waterfront.

Just as at the Lahore fort, so here in the first year of his accession Shah Jahan
ordered a Chehil Sutun (Plate 109) to be placed inside the courtyard of the
Public Audience Hall. This flat-roofed rectangular structure, today called a
Diwan-i c Amm, is divided into three aisles of ten bays each. Faceted pillars
support cusped arches with acanthus leaves in each apex. This is typical of those
on much of Shah Jahan’s architecture. Constructed of red sandstone, this
pavilion is covered with a veneer of highly burnished plaster ( chuna ), giving it
the appearance of white marble.

The east wall of the Audience Hall contains a raised rectangular chamber
with three tri-lobed openings (Plate no) that serves as a jbaroka from which
the emperor presented himself to those assembled in the Chehil Sutun. Unlike
the nobles’ area, covered with a burnished plaster veneer, this area reserved
for the emperor is constructed of marble that in many places is richly inlaid
with precious stones. The lower portion of the chamber’s walls is carved with
a row of baluster columns, that is, bulbous looking columns that appear to
grow from a pot. This column type, first used in Mughal architecture during
Shah Jahan’s period, was inspired by European prints owned by the Mughal
emperors; in these prints, kings and religious figures are flanked by this sort of

182

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 109. Exterior, Chehil Sutun, today known as the Diwan-i c Amm or Public

Audience Hall, Agra fort, Agra

column . 14 Since the Mughal baluster columns derive from illustrations in which
they flank both royal and religious subjects, they were intended in Shah Jahan’s
architecture as a reference to his semi-divine nature.

Inside the hall silver balustrades were set up allowing the nobility to stand
according to rank. Those who held a rank lower than 200 in the numerical
hierarchy designating Mughal nobility stood not in the Chehil Sutun but in the
red sandstone arched galleries that lined the perimeter of the huge quadrangle.
A European visitor to the Mughal court relates that each noble was ordered to
embellish one bay of this surrounding gallery at his own expense. Vying with
one another for recognition, they covered the entire gallery with fine brocades
and carpets, creating an opulent setting and a lasting memory of the Mughal
emperor’s power . 15 This, contemporary texts reveal, was the very goal of Shah
Jahan, King of the World.

To the east of the Public Audience Hall is a quadrangle now called the
Macchi Bhavan, for the storage of treasure. It contains a courtyard lined on
three sides by two-storied arched galleries. The upper story’s south projecting
central bay (Plate 1 1 1) was designed as a throne niche whose appearance was
enhanced by powerful imagery. It consists of four bulbous baluster columns
supporting a rounded baldachin that, like the columns of the nearby Audience
Hall, were intended to underscore Shah Jahan’s semi-divine character . 16 Beside
these structural baluster columns, the baldachin’s carving is embellished with
relief representations of baluster columns and a sun medallion at the top, thus
continuing the long-standing Mughal fascination with sun and light imagery.

14 Ebba Koch, “The Baluster Column - A European Motif in Mughal Architecture and its Meaning,”
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , 45, 1982, 251-62.

15 Francois Bernier, Travels in the Mogul Empire , tr, A. Constable (2nd ed., London, 1914), pp. 269-70,
describes Delhi, but similar decoration was favored at Agra.

16 Koch, Shah Jahan and Orpheus , pp. 14-15.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate i io .Jharoka from inside the Public Audience Hall, Agra fort, Agra

184

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate hi. Throne, in a quadrangle known today as the Macchi Bhavan, with the

Private Audience Hall in the rear, Agra fort, Agra

According to Lahauri, within this pavilion was Shah Jahan’s golden throne,
which he likens to the seventh heaven. 17

On the quadrangle’s eastern side, overlooking the river, is a raised white
marble platform. At its northern and southern ends are marble pavilions facing
one another. The northern one, originally faced with a gallery of inlaid marble
pillars, is the royal multi-roomed bath, or hammam J 8 Here, in addition to
bathing, private conferences were held. The Private Audience Hall (Daulat
Khana-i Khass), popularly today called the Diwan-i Khass, is the pavilion at the
southern end of the platform. This double-chambered structure is entered
through five openings flanked by double pillars supporting cusped arches.
Inside is a lengthy Persian inscription dated 1636-37 inlaid in black stone. It
compares this room to the highest heavens, while the emperor himself is
likened to the sun in the sky. Enhancing this celestial imagery is the ceiling that
was once covered with gold and silver like the rays of the sun.

Shah Jahan’s private residential quarters, inside another quadrangle, stand on
a plinth that overlooks the river. On the north is the octagonal tower known
today as the Musamman Burj. At this site Shah Jahan demolished Jahangir’s
palaces, just as he had done at the Lahore fort, and in their place erected this
multi-storied tower whose marble fabric is richly inlaid with precious stones.
Adjoining the tower to the west is a small pavilion, known as the Shah Burj,
with an exquisitely carved sunken tank in its center (Plate 112). This pavilion,

17 Lahauri in Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra Fort and its Buildings,” 179.

18 Ebba Koch, “The Lost Colonnade of Shah Jahan’s Bath in the Red Fort of Agra,” The Burlington
Magazine , cxxiv, 951, 1982, 331-39.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 1 12. Interior, Shah Burj, known today as the Musamman Burj, Agra fort,

Agra

decorated with inlay over most of its marble surface, is perhaps the most ornate
building in the entire Agra fort. Its materials and design indicate imperial use,
as does its location between the Private Audience Hall and the king’s sleeping
quarters.

The central pavilion on this platform is Shah Jahan’s sleeping quarters,
known today as the Khass Mahal, but in contemporary texts as the Aramgah,
or place of rest. Flanking it on either side are two almost identical rectangular
pavilions within screened enclosures. From the north one (Plate 113), Shah
Jahan presented himself to the public outside the fort on the terrain below. This
pavilion was surmounted by curved sloping eaves and a bangala roof that was
gilded. Shah Jahan’s official chronicler, Lahauri, notes that when the emperor
presented himself to his subjects under this gilt roof, it appeared as if there were
two suns. 19 One was light from the morning sun reflected on the roof of this
pavilion. The other, Lahauri said, was the emperor himself. Light reflected
from the gold roof appeared to crown the king with a halo of the sort often
depicted in contemporary paintings and described in literature.

19 Lahauri in Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra Fort and its Buildings,” 180.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 1 13. Exterior view of the public viewing pavilion and the Aramgah,

Agra Fort, Agra

• — m

The nearly identical pavilion on the other side of the Aramgah was the living
quarters of Jahan Ara, Shah Jahan’s eldest and most devoted daughter. Known .
as the Begum Sahib, she assumed the responsibilities of the chief queen after the
death of her mother, Mumtaz Mahal, in 1631.

There are two small marble mosques inside the fort. Although they are
not mentioned in contemporary sources, they were probably completed in
the initial phases of Shah Jahan’s work there. The more important of them,
known today as the Nagina mosque (Plate 114), is approached from the
throne chamber of the Public Audience Hall and the Macchi Bhavan, suggest-
ing that it was built as Shah Jahan’s personal chapel. Its imperial character is
further corroborated by baluster columns, used only on royal buildings
at this time. This mosque consists of two aisles divided into six bays by
slender piers supporting cusped arches. The parapet and eaves above the
central bay are curved, recalling the exterior facade of the pavilion for public
presentation near the imperial sleeping chamber and emphasizing its regnal
character.

In addition to the small mosques is the fort's Jami c mosque, today known as
the Moti or Pearl mosque (Plate 1 1 5). It was not completed until October 1653,
about five years after the imperial residence had shifted to Delhi. After Shah

187

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 1 14. Mosque, known today as the Nagina mosque, Agra fort, Agra

Jahan saw the mosque in December, 1653, he was so impressed that later he
returned to show it to two of his sons. Often considered the most majestic of
all Mughal mosques, it is modeled on Shah Jahan’s earlier Jami c mosque in
Ajmer (Plate 105). Each is constructed entirely of white marble; each is divided
internally into multi-bayed aisles; and each bears lengthy Persian inscriptions
executed in black marble under the eaves. The Agra mosque is, however,
situated in a walled enclosure following the Mughal version of a standard four-
aiwan mosque-type, while the Ajmer mosque is not walled, emphasizing direct
alignment with the shrine of Mu c in al-Din. The Agra mosque has twelve-sided
piers, typical of Shah Jahan’s later architecture, that support cusped arches.
Three high bulbous domes as well as marble chattris surmount the roof of the
Agra Jami c mosque, features not present in the earlier Ajmer mosque, but
inspired by Akbar’s Jami c mosque at Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 25). Both of these
structures reflect the tendency for exquisite yet relatively unembellished
marble in Shah Jahan’s private religious architecture. The Agra fort mosque,
more than any other, is a perfectly balanced marriage of form, mass and scale.

The similarity of the inscriptions on the Agra and Ajmer mosques is also
striking. Both depict Shah Jahan as a world ruler while at the same time using

188

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 1 1 5. Jami c mosque, today known as the Moti mosque, Agra fort, Agra

paradisical and sacral imagery to describe the mosques’ features. The imagery
of the Agra mosque’s inscription, on the other hand, is more complex, a trend
that, as we shall see, is evident in other aspects of Shah Jahan’s architecture as
well. While some have interpreted the use of heightened paradisical imagery as
evidence for Shah Jahan’s interest in mysticism, it is surely an elaboration of a
long-standing motif in Mughal art.

Agra, the city

As early as 1637 Shah Jahan expressed dissatisfaction with Agra’s terrain, hence
with its suitability as the imperial capital. Nevertheless, he and his favorite
daughter, Jahan Ara, tried to improve the city. Soon after 1637 Shah Jahan
constructed a public area ( chowk ) in the shape of a Baghdadi octagon in front
of the fort. Its perimeter consisted of small chambers and pillared arcades. 20 At
the same time, Jahan Ara requested permission to endow a Jami c mosque close
to the fort. Earlier one had been commenced near the river, but its construction
was interrupted so that the Taj Mahal could be completed quickly. Some of the
land for Jahan Ara’s mosque was crown land, but the rest had to be purchased;
in accordance with tradition, it could not be confiscated. The acquisition of this
additional land must have taken some time, for, according to inscriptions

20 Kanbo, 11: 192-93.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 1 1 6. Jami c mosque, Agra

preserved on the mosque’s facade, it was not even commenced until 1643 anc ^
not completed until 1648.

Jahan Ara’s imposing Jami c mosque (Plates 116 and 117) is elevated well
above ground level and in Mughal times was visible from a considerable
distance. Its large prayer chamber composed mainly of red sandstone and white
marble trim is surmounted by three domes embellished with narrow rows of
red and white stone. The prayer chamber’s east facade is pierced by five
entrance arches, the central one within a high pishtaq. It recalls the elevation,
although not the ornamentation, of Wazir Khan’s mosque in Lahore, built in
1634 (Plate 140). Framing the pishtaq is a rectangular band of black lettering
inlaid into the white marble ground, similar to the bands used on the nearby
tomb of Mumtaz Mahal (Plate 1 3 1 ). Here the inscriptions are not Quranic but
Persian encomiums, largely praising Shah Jahan and his just rule. 21

Quranic inscriptions are inlaid in black stone above a recessed mihrab. The
minbar, or pulpit, only found in Jami c mosques, is carved with an illustration
of this mosque’s east facade, a unique feature. The side wings are divided into
double aisles of three bays each following the standard pattern of imperial
Mughal congregational mosques.

Wayne E. Begley, “The Symbolic Role of Calligraphy on Three Imperial Mosques of Shah Jahan’s
Time,” in Joanna G. Williams (ed.), Kaladarsana (New Delhi, 1981), 8-10.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate ii 7. Jami c mosque, Agra

Shahjahanabad

Shahjahanabad, literally the abode of Shah Jahan, was not simply a fortified
palace, but an entire walled city built as the new Mughal capital. It was con-
structed at Delhi, the capital of many earlier Islamic dynasties in India. North
of the older Mughal nucleus of Delhi, the city was built on a bluff overlooking
the Jumna river next to a fortified hillock known during Jahangir’s time as

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

6 8 9 10 11

Plate 1 1 8. Shahjahanabad fort, known today as the Red Fort, Delhi, i. Akbarabad
(Delhi) gate; 2. Lahore gate; 3. Covered bazaar; 4. Naqqar Khana (Drum Room);

5. Daulat Khana-i Khass o c Amm (Public Audience Hall); 6. Shah Burj; 7. Nahr-i
Behisht (Canal of Paradise); 8. Hammam (bath); 9. Daulat Khana-i Khass (Private
Audience Hall); 10. Khwabgah; 1 1. Imtiyaz Mahal (Hall of Distinction); 12. Moti

(Pearl) mosque

Nurgarh. As early as 1637 Shah Jahan lamented that Agra and Lahore provided
inadequate space for the proper observance of court ceremony and processions.
Two years later, in 1639, and at an auspiciously chosen moment, the foun-
dations of Shahjahanabad were commenced. The city and palace plans were
designed by Ustad Hamid and Ustad Ahmad, neither of whom lived to see the
city’s completion. Ghairat Khan, governor of Delhi, was appointed supervisor.
Later Makramat Khan superseded Ghairat Khan, and it was under him that the
bulk of the project was completed in 1648. As with most of his other architec-
tural projects, Shah Jahan was actively involved. He played a role not only in
the approval of the design, but also in the on-going construction. The emperor
several times visited the site, ordered suitable changes in the plans, and
rewarded the workers for their progress. While visiting the site in 1647, the
emperor ordered the fort’s completion within the following year. Thus two
additional architects, c Aqil Khan and Aqa Yusuf, were brought in to assist
Makramat Khan.

192

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

The fort and interior palaces

The fort was dedicated in April, 1648. Its buildings, especially the Public
Audience Hall, where much of the celebration took place, were lavishly
embellished with textiles embroidered with gold, silver and pearls. Large sums
of money, valuable jeweled swords, elephants and other treasures were dis-
tributed to members of the royal family and the nobility; many, including
Makramat Khan, the supervisor, were awarded an increase in rank.

This fortified palace, today known as Delhi’s Red Fort, is irregular in plan,
but essentially rectangular in shape (Plate 118). Its red sandstone walls, more
than 3 km in circumference, enclose nearly 125 acres of land. The fort was
situated on Shahjahanabad’s eastern edge, dominating the newly constructed
city. On the fort’s east, just beyond its walls, lay the Jumna river; beyond the
walls on its remaining three sides, the nobles, high-ranking ladies and members
of the royal family provided markets, mosques and gardens. For themselves,
the nobles constructed mansions that, while smaller in size, mirrored the form
and function of the fort’s palaces. 22

Among the fort’s gates, the south or Akbarabad gate (today called the Delhi
gate) and the Lahore gate, situated centrally on the west, were the most
imposing and led to the city’s most important areas. The Akbarabad gate led to
Shah Jahan’s Jami c mosque, situated at the city’s highest point, and from a
major thoroughfare and market later known as Faiz bazaar. Even more
important was the massive red sandstone Lahore gate. It was a focal point, the
terminus of Shahjahanabad’s main avenue through which a canal ran. On the
other side, the Lahore gate was aligned with the palace’s Public Audience Hall,
in which Shah Jahan’s magnificent marble throne was installed. Thus the
enthroned emperor faced the heart of his newly established capital, symboliz-
ing his role as a just ruler, who like a father was directly in touch with his
subjects. This was a visual manifestation of the Mughal concept of kingship that
had been established by Akbar.

Walking through the Lahore gate, one immediately enters a covered two-
storied arcade, 70.1 meters long and 8.3 meters wide. On each side, it contains
thirty-two arched bays that served as shops, just as they do today. The Agra
fort had a similar set of shops, though not inside a covered arcade. The notion
of a covered bazaar was stimulated by one Shah Jahan saw in 1 646 in Peshawar.
That one had been constructed by c Ali Mardan Khan, then his highest-ranking
noble. Impressed with this Iranian-style covered market, the king ordered that

Stephen P. Blake, “Cityscape of an Imperial Capital: Shahjahanabad in 1739,” in R. E. Frykenberg
(ed.), Delhi Through the Ages (Delhi, 1986), 175.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

its plan be sent to Makramat Khan so that such a structure might be included
in his new fort of Shahjahanabad. 23

Although the covered bazaar is well preserved, many other parts of the fort’s
interior have been altered. Most significantly, walls that divided the fort’s
interior into a series of quadrangles or courtyards as at the Lahore and Agra
forts have been eliminated. Within each of these quadrangles was one of the
fort’s major marble buildings. Most of these buildings, like the bazaar, remain
well preserved.

The covered bazaar leads directly to a building known as the Naqqar Khana,
or Drum Room. Here music announcing the arrival of the emperor and other
important nobles was played. This two-storied structure in turn leads into the
courtyard of the Daulat Khana-i Khass o c Amm, or Public Audience Hall.
Today this is known as the Diwan-i c Amm. Originally both the Drum Room
and Public Audience Hall stood within a courtyard enclosed on all four sides
by an arcade.

The Public Audience Hall closely resembles the pillared Chehil Sutun of
Shah Jahan’s two earlier forts in Agra and Lahore (Plate 109). Within it is Shah
Jahan’s jharoka (Jharoka-i Khass o c Amm), the one from which he presented
himself to his nobles (Plate 1 19). This marble throne, situated in the central bay
of the east wall, is composed of a high plinth upon which are carved floral
sprays and baluster columns like those on the throne niche in the Public
Audience Hall of the Agra fort. At each corner of the platform is a large
baluster column that supports a deeply sloping curved roof ( bangala ) or
baldachin. The baluster columns and bangala covering, inspired by European
illustrations of royalty and holy personages, explicitly symbolize Shah Jahan’s
role as a semi-divine world ruler.

Not only the architectural setting, but also the motifs formed by inlay in the
throne itself, underscore this symbolism. The upper portion of the throne, as
contemporary chroniclers relate, is “famed for its various colored stones inlaid
into the walls . . . and adorned with many rare pictures.” 24 The emphasis on the
word rare here is not hyperbole, for rectangular plaques of black marble are
inlaid with rare stones, a technique known as pietra dura. These black marble
plaques were imported from Italy, doubtless presented to the emperor as a
special gift, while the surrounding white marble inlaid with precious stones
forming the birds and flowers was Mughal work.

Most of these imported pietra dura panels depict single birds and floral
motifs; a few that depict lions are probably Indian works, not imported.
Different from all the others, the top central panel, an Italian product,

23 Kanbo, it: 391-92.

24 Gordon Sanderson, “Shah Jahan’s Fort, Delhi,” Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India,
1911-12 (Calcutta, 1915), 1 6.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 1 1 9. Jharoka, Daulat Khana-i Khass o c Amm, or the Public Audience Hall,

Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi

*95

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

illustrates Orpheus playing his lute and wild animals seated peacefully before
him. This panel’s central location, directly over the emperor’s head, was
expressly chosen. Although the Mughals may not have known the meaning of
the Orpheus theme, they used it, as earlier they had used other European
forms, for their own purposes. Here the combination of Orpheus, the birds,
flowers and lions symbolize the throne of Solomon, regarded as the ideal model
of just Islamic kingship. 25 The theme is not a new one, for symbols of
Solomonic kingship had been seen at the Lahore fort. But here Shah Jahan,
King of the World, aligned with his city and subjects, is more specifically than
ever before identified as an ideal ruler.

The quadrangle containing the Public Audience Hall is organized much like
those in the Lahore and Agra forts. It, too, had a quasi-public function, and was
centrally located inside the fort, but away from the river front. Those buildings
reserved exclusively for the emperor’s private use overlooked the river, as they
did at Lahore and Agra. The riverfront pavilions were situated on an elevated
plinth and were constructed of white marble. In front of each royal building
was a courtyard enclosed by walls on three sides; the building itself served
as the courtyard’s fourth wall. Thus from within the fort there was no
unobstructed view of the buildings reserved for royalty. A similar arrangement
earlier was seen in the Agra and Lahore forts, revealing a continuity in the
concepts that stand behind the design of Shah Jahan’s palace architecture.

The white marble pavilions on the riverfront include imperial offices,
residences for the king and his family, gardens and viewing towers. The
northernmost riverfront building is the Shah Burj, or King’s Tower, originally
surmounted by a chattri , now missing. This pavilion is south facing and aligned
with the other imperial chambers on the riverfront. Its exterior consists of five
baluster columns supporting cusped arches. Above the central arch is a curved
bangala roof suggesting a baldachin covering. According to contemporary
sources, only the king and royal children entered this pavilion, underscoring
the imperial connotations of this column and roof type. 26 Within the bay of the
central arch is a lotus-shaped pool (Plate 120), from which water flows into a
channel that originally ran south through the other marble pavilions on the
riverfront. The source of the palace’s channel, known as the Canal of Paradise
(Nahr-i Behisht), was a larger canal 48 km north on the Jumna, excavated
originally in the fourteenth century and then re-opened on Shah Jahan’s orders.

South of the Shah Burj are two marble buildings, the bath {hammam) and the
Private Audience Hall (Daulat Khana-i Khass) that were originally part of a
single quadrangle. Like their counterparts at the Agra fort, these structures
form a single unit. Here the most important state issues were discussed
privately, particularly in the baths, where a select few could hold council in a

Koch, Shah Jahan and Orpheus , pp.

26 Koch, “The Baluster Column,” 259.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN'S PATRONAGE

Plate 120. Interior, Shah Burj, Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi

cool environment during the summer or a heated one in the winter. A three-
chambered structure, the bath’s floors, sunken pools and the walls’ dado are
made wholly of inlaid marble. The most exquisite room, the central chamber,
is marked by a sunken marble tank. This and the entire flooring are inlaid with
uncluttered floral and chevron patterns, suggesting a simple yet elegant
sophistication of form.

The Private Audience Hall (Plate 121) is south of the bath on the same
elevated marble platform. It is a rectangular building measuring 27.5 by 14.3
meters. The chaste elegance of this Private Audience Hall’s exterior, marked by
marble piers supporting cusped arches, stands in contrast to its ornate interior.
Here the marble is embellished with gilt and floral sprays rendered in inlaid
jewels. The ceiling was silver, removed by marauders in the late eighteenth
century. In this hall stood Shah Jahan’s famous gem-encrusted Peacock Throne
(Takht-i Shahi), completed by Bebadal Khan. On the walls of the central cham-
ber Shah Jahan had inscribed the oft-quoted verse, “If there be a paradise on
earth, this is it, this is it, this is it.” 27

List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province , 4 vols. (Calcutta, 1916-22), 1: 19-20.
Hereafter cited as List.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 1 21. Exterior, Daulat Khana-i Khass or Private Audience Hall, Shahjahanabad

fort, Delhi

Shah Jahan’s residential quarters are adjacent to the Private Audience Hall.
This follows the arrangement of his quarters in the Agra and Lahore forts. The
Khwabgah or place of sleep, today called the Khass Mahal, is divided into three
chambers with a projecting engaged octagonal tower (Burj-i Tila) off the east
side that overlooks the river. The tower’s arched windows served as the
jharoka-i darshan , the one from which he presented himself to the public,
similar in appearance to the public viewing balcony at the Agra fort.

The Canal of Paradise that commenced at the Shah Burj flows through the
Khwabgah’s central chamber beneath an elaborately carved marble screen
(Plate 122). Above the screen is a large gilt relief representation of the scales of
justice, an allusion to Shah Jahan’s perception of his rule. A lengthy Persian
inscription records the date work on the fort was commenced and the date the
fort was formally inaugurated; it cites the cost and praises the patron, Shah
Jahan; and it compares his fort to the mansions of heaven . 28 That comparison
recalls the inscription on the adjacent Private Audience Hall that relates it to
paradise on earth, and it recalls the many visual allusions to paradise in Shah

28 List y 1: 16-17.

1 98

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 122. Scales of justice, Shahjahanabad fort, Delhi

1 99

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Jahan’s buildings. Rarely are the private quarters of other emperors provided
such inscriptions, as if Shah Jahan anticipated history looking back on him.

South of the imperial sleeping quarter and viewing balcony were quarters
reserved for the women. Among these is a pavilion known today as the Rang
Mahal, properly called the Imtiyaz Mahal, that is, the Hall of Distinction. The
Canal of Paradise flows through the central aisle of this building, too, and is
caught in a centrally placed marble pool carved to resemble an open lotus (Plate
123). In the main chamber twelve-sided piers support cusped arches, a
form used in most buildings of the Shahjahanabad fort. Inlay, gilt and poly-
chrome originally covered the marble walls of the Rang Mahal. Thus in the
Shahjahanabad palace, one of Shah Jahan’s latest architectural projects, the
imperial chambers, even more than those at Lahore and Agra, are elaborately
embellished. This stands in striking contrast to Shah Jahan’s private mosque
architecture of nearly this same period.

The fort’s remaining areas have been altered greatly. However, descriptions
by seventeenth-century visitors indicate the functions of some of them. The
fort was clearly a city within a city, not just a series of palaces. That is, all
manufactured and processed products needed by the king, the court and its
entourage were produced within the fort. The Frenchman Bernier relates that
inside the fort were many roads that led to large halls or quadrangles contain-
ing kar khanas , workshops or centers of production for the goods required
within the palace. 29 Here everything was produced from fine paintings, jades,
textiles and swords to papers, prepared foods and perfumes. It has been esti-
mated that a total of 57,000 people lived within the walls of this palace fort, the
function of each intended to serve the emperor’s needs.

Shahjahanabad: the city and its environs

The original walls of Shahjahanabad were mud. They quickly fell into disrepair,
however, and so in 1653 they were replaced with more permanent walls of red
sandstone. 30 The new walls were punctuated with twenty-seven towers and
eleven gates enclosing some 6,400 acres; about 400,000 people lived within
them. Shahjahanabad was divided into sectors. In them leading court figures
built mansions containing, like the imperial palace, residential buildings as well
as all units of production needed to serve the extensive household inside. Even
Dara Shukoh, the heir apparent, lived along the riverbank outside the palace.

Large bazaars further divided the city. One of the most important was
situated due west of the fort’s Lahore gate, corresponding with an area today
known as Chandni Chowk. Texts indicate that it was composed of uniform
pillared galleries on either side of a central canal. It was the prerogative of the
leading court ladies to build in and around these markets. Just north of this

29 Bernier, Travels, pp. 258-59. 30 Kanbo, 111: 1 84.

200

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN'S PATRONAGE

Plate 123. Pool, Imtiyaz Mahal, known today as the Rang Mahal, Shahjahanabad,

Delhi

market, Jahan Ara Begum constructed a garden known as Sahibabad, used as a
serai for the richest merchants. Manucci and Bernier praised its galleries,
gardens and canals as among the city's most beautiful. 31 Along the Chandni
Chowk, not far from the city's Lahore gate, Fatehpuri Begum, probably Shah
Jahan’s third wife, built a mosque similar to Jahan Ara's Jami c mosque in Agra.
This large structure, dominating the area, was completed about the same time
as most of the palace, around 1650. Nearby Sirhindi Begum, an influential
woman of the court, provided a smaller red sandstone mosque.

Akbarabadi Mahal, usually identified as Shah Jahan's first wife, provided a
serai and an impressive mosque in a second major market in the south part of
the city. The emperor used this mosque for prayer until his own was completed
in 1656. 32 It no longer exists, but nineteenth-century illustrations indicate that
the mosque was similar to contemporary ones built by Fatehpuri Begum and
Jahan Ara (Plate 1 16). This suggests that the uniformity in design for imperially
sponsored mosques was intentional, signaling power throughout the city.

31 Bernier, Travels , p. 281, and Niccolao Manucci, Storia do Mogor or Mogul India , 1653-1708, tr.
W. Irvine, 4 vols. (London, 1907-08), 1: 221-23.

32 Kanbo, 111: 90.

201

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

The two mosques Shah Jahan provided for the city, similar yet even grander
than those of the court ladies, further underscore the notion of a uniform style
to represent imperial presence. One was an c Idgah, completed in 1655. It was
located outside the city walls, where adequate land was available for the
enormous crowd that gathered for the annual celebration of the c Id prayers. 33
Today it is known as the Purani Tdgah (Old c Idgah), even though little remains
of its once impressive red sandstone facade. The second and more important
mosque was the Jami c mosque of Shahjahanabad (Plate 124), located inside the
city a short distance from the fort. It is today still considered the Jami c mosque
of Delhi. In September 1650 Shah Jahan issued orders for the commencement
of this mosque under the supervision of c Allami Sa c id Khan and Fazl Khan. It
was completed after six years, in 1656. Shah Jahan called it the Masjid-i
Jahannuma, or the World Displaying Mosque, and claimed he modeled it on
Akbar’s mosque at Fatehpur Sikri (Plates 24 and 2 5), 34 although the interior is
closer to the Agra Jami c mosque’s (Plate 117). Years earlier Jahangir had
proudly shown the prince Shah Jahan that mosque at Fatehpur Sikri, which
clearly remained a symbol of Mughal heritage and pride. Like the Fatehpur
Sikri mosque, Shah Jahan’s Delhi mosque is appropriately situated on top of a
rocky ridge, rendering it visible from a great distance. At the time of its con-
struction, this mosque was the largest in the entire subcontinent; even today it
is surpassed in size only by Aurangzeb’s Jami c mosque in Lahore (Plate 162).

The mosque is approached by steep, high stairs recalling those leading to the
Fatehpur Sikri mosque (Plate 23). Its interior court and facade, too, owe
considerable debt to the great mosque at Fatehpur Sikri. The prayer
chamber, faced with red sandstone and extensive white marble trim, is marked
by multiple entrance arches. Three bulbous marble domes crown the mosque
and towering minarets flank the south and northeast ends.

Above each entrance to the prayer chamber’s side wings are marble panels
inlaid with a lengthy black stone Persian inscription written by the calligrapher
Nur Allah Ahmad. These verses extol the magnificence of the mosque and
lavish praise on Shah Jahan. One interior motif may also serve as a reference to
Shah Jahan: the baluster columns that appear in recessed demi-domes on the
mosque’s side walls (Plate 125) and in the mihrabs. Earlier such columns had
been used in places frequented exclusively by the king and his family, but here
they appear on the mosque intended for Shahjahanabad’s entire population.
While Shah Jahan performed his prayers here, others did as well. The pillars
then possibly serve as a reference to the emperor, proclaimed in the mosque’s
inscription as the “strengthener of the pillars of state . . . [and] the promulgator
of . . . faith.” 35

Extensive suburbs with magnificent gardens developed outside the city

33 Kanbo, 111: 160-61. 34 Koch, “Architectural Forms,” p. 122. 35 List, 1: 143-44.

202

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 124. Jami c mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

walls; these elicited considerable praise from European travelers. Again the
imperial women were responsible for much of this construction. Akbarabadi
Mahal, noted for building a mosque and serai within the city, in 1650 also pro-
vided a magnificent walled garden, today known as Shalimar Bagh, about 8 km
north of the city. Contemporary texts indicate that it was modeled on Shah
Jahan’s gardens in Lahore and Kashmir that are known today as the Shalimar
gardens. Very little remains of this large terraced garden, which Bernier claims
was Shah Jahan’s country estate. That is probably true, for the layout and
baluster columns of the largest remaining pavilion suggest that it was used as a
throne room.

Another outstanding garden was provided north of the walled city by
Raushan Ara, Shah Jahan’s youngest daughter. Concurrent with prolific
building activity in the new city about 1650, she commenced this garden and
her own tomb (Plate 126). The garden maintains none of its original appear-
ance, and only the tomb among the several structures once there remains.

203

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 125. Interior niche, Jami c mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

Approached by causeways, the pavilion containing her grave is in the midst of
a small tank. The uncovered central portion of the pavilion contains Raushan
Ara’s grave; the surrounding flat-roofed galleries have cusped arches supported
on bulbous baluster columns, generally an imperial perquisite during Shah
Jahan’s reign. Paradoxically, however, her simple cenotaph remains open to the
air, indicative of her role as God’s mere slave.

Palaces for hunting and retreat

Hunting was sport, but it was also intended to show the emperor’s prowess and
skill. While hunting could take place anywhere, certain areas renowned for
their excellent game were maintained as imperial reserves. At a number of these,
Shah Jahan erected permanent palaces and pavilions. By far the best preserved
and largest is the hunting estate at Bari.

The Bari palace, not far from Babur’s Lotus garden at Dholpur, was
completed by 1637. Almost every year thereafter Shah Jahan hunted here for
several days. Known in Mughal times as the Lai Mahal, or Red Palace, on

204

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH lAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 126. Raushan Ara’s tomb, Delhi

account of its red stone fabric, the lodge is situated on the edge of a lake. Two
small walled enclosures, one of them a hammam , overlook the lake’s north end.
A long causeway with chattris links these enclosures with a large pavilion on
the lake’s east. This pavilion is divided into three courtyards with a small char
bagh in the middle of each. The side courtyards were used by men and women
separately. The central one clearly was reserved for imperial use, and contained
the very components essential to Mughal court ritual. 36 Centrally placed on this
courtyard’s east wall is the emperor ’sjharoka or viewing balcony covered with
a bangala roof (Plate 127).

Surviving palaces at Rupbas and Mahal, not far from Agra, are considerably
smaller than the one at Bari, but follow a similar layout, apparently one
characteristic of a hunting lodge. Others, however, were less elaborate, for
example, one at Sheikhupura (Plate 128) in the Punjab; it was commenced by
Jahangir (Plate 68) and in 1634 the complex was partially reconstructed by Shah
Jahan. The current appearance of this three-storied octagonal pavilion, situated
in the center of a large tank, is the result of Shah Jahan’s work. Its overall

Jeffery A. Hughes, “Shah Jahan’s Lal-Mahal at Bari and the Tradition of Mughal Hunting Palaces,”
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa, 1988, p. 176.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 127. Jharoka, Lai Mahal, Bari

appearance is one of refined elegance, with the light stucco veneer appearing to
emulate the marble surfaces of Shah Jahan’s palace buildings.

In 1653 Shah Jahan ordered the construction of a summer palace at
Mukhlispur, about 120 km north of Delhi on the Jumna. He favored the palace
and its pavilions, renaming it Faizabad. There he found respite from Delhi’s
blistering heat; moreover, toward the end of his reign, the palace served as a
refuge when plague and cholera infested the imperial capital. Although but a
shadow of its former magnificence, this summer retreat featured all the
chambers necessary for Mughal court ceremony, administration and daily life.

Shah ] ah an' s gardens

Shah Jahan had a life-long interest in the construction of superbly well-ordered
gardens. Many of these served as the setting for major structural works, for
example the tomb of Mumtaz Mahal, better known today as the Taj Mahal, or
Jahangir’s tomb in Lahore. Palaces also incorporated gardens into their layout.
Other gardens, however, were developed independently of tombs and palaces.
Structures enhanced these gardens, but they were not the reason for the
gardens’ existence. Most of the gardens Shah Jahan built or renovated were
situated between Agra and Kabul. They thus could double as camps or as an
imperial serai along the road to Kashmir and further to Kabul.

In 1634 when Shah Jahan was en route from Agra to Kashmir via Lahore, he

206

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 128. Pavilion, Sheikhupura

stopped at a number of gardens, including one in Ambala. 37 Shah Jahan had
constructed a garden there when he was still a prince. Upon his accession he
gave the garden to Jahan Ara, his eldest and favorite daughter, and ordered that
suitable buildings be erected there for the women serving as imperial wet-
nurses.

Continuing his travels to Kashmir in 1634, Shah Jahan proceeded from
Ambala to Sirhind and there pitched camp in the Bagh-i Hafiz Rakhna. It had
been initially constructed by Akbar and later renewed under Jahangir. During
this visit Shah Jahan ordered Diyanat Khan, th efaujdar (law and order official)
of Sirhind, to add several structures including private quarters, an audience hall,
a viewing balcony and terraced platforms on the banks of the garden’s tank.
These buildings, completed in 1635, were visited by Shah Jahan at that time.
The garden, today known as the c Amm Khass Bagh, was divided into four
sections, one for fruit trees, another for flowers, the third for vegetables and the
fourth for the royal palace. Several structures there retain the imprint of Shah
Jahan’s patronage. The most notable of these is a two-storied building with a
curved bangala roof, a type associated with imperial structures.

The climate and natural beauty of Kashmir made it the Mughal seat of
rest and leisure. Shah Jahan enjoyed the many Mughal gardens there -
some imperially sponsored, others built by princes and high-ranking officials.
Among those he praised were the one at Avantipur constructed by Dara
Shukoh, Asaf Khan’s Nishat Bagh, and Nur Jahan’s Bagh-i Nur Afza, all
located within the Srinagar Valley. 38 But the most impressive of all are

37 Kanbo, 1: 519-20. 38 Kanbo, 11: 27-37, 2 75 “ 7 ^> 360-61.

20 7

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Shah Jahan’s own gardens in Kashmir, especially the world famous Shalimar
garden.

Shalimar garden, situated on the edge of Dal lake in Srinagar and set against
the Pir Panjal mountain range, was termed by the Frenchman Bernier the most
beautiful of all the gardens. 39 While this site long had served as a garden, its con-
version into a terraced Mughal-type garden commenced in 1620, when Jahangir
ordered the prince Shah Jahan to dam the stream near Shalimar. In 1634 Shah
Jahan further enlarged the garden. It was extended to reach the foot of the
mountains, and additional pavilions were then built. Although the older name
Shalimar was never abandoned, the Mughals called their new garden the
Bagh-i Faiz Bakhsh and Farah Bakhsh, reflecting its division into two parts.
The lower terraces, used for imperial audiences, formed the Farah Bakhsh
garden (Garden of the Bestower of Pleasure). The higher terraces nearer the
mountains, intended for private use, were known as the Faiz Bakhsh (Bestower
of Plenty). The garden was approached from Dal lake. According to Bernier, a
tree-lined canal led to a small fore-garden that originally fronted Shalimar
proper.

The entire garden is divided laterally by a wide stream that commences from
the mountains behind and runs the entire length of the garden through the
terraced levels. Carved water chutes enhance the effect of rapidly running
water. Recessed niches for lamps were carved into the terraced walls over
which cascading water fell, illuminating the water at night, for the gardens were
used as much then as during the day. Pools with spouting fountains further
embellish the garden. In the center of each part of the garden is a black stone
pavilion (Plate 129) covered with a tiered roof. Serving as imperial seats, these
pavilions stretch across the canal overlooking cascading waterfalls. In the lower
garden a centrally placed black platform, serving as the imperial throne, is
situated across the water between bracketed pillars. Shah Jahan’s Shalimar
garden epitomizes the long-standing Mughal love of architectural setting
within ordered nature.

Although the most famous Shalimar garden is the one in Kashmir, another
Shalimar, also known in contemporary times as the Bagh-i Faiz Bakhsh and
Farah Bakhsh, was constructed by Shah Jahan in Lahore. In Mughal times, it
was on the city’s outskirts, though now it is well within modern Lahore.
Modeled generally on Shah Jahan’s Kashmir Shalimar, it is a large terraced
garden, though not situated on a river bank; instead, its water supply derived
from a great canal that originated considerably north of Lahore and brought
water to this Mughal city. In 1641, Khalil Allah Khan was ordered to com-
mence the garden. A year and a half later it was completed at considerable

39 Bernier, Travels , pp. 399—400, and Kanbo, 11: 28-30.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 129. Pavilion, Shalimar garden, Srinagar

expense by the great Mughal engineers c Ali Mardan Khan and Mulla c Alam
Alahi Tuni.

This garden consists of three terraces divided laterally by a wide canal. The

lowest terrace is essentially a square four-part garden of the standard Mughal

type. Marble imperial residences and audience halls are located on the second

terrace on the edges of the large central tank filled with spouting fountains

(Plate 130). One marble platform is even located in the center of the tank and

linked to each of the banks by narrow red stone bridges supported on cusped

arches. Included in the garden were seats for public audiences, baths inlaid with

stones, and residences for the emperor and his daughter. During Shah Jahan’s

time there were so many buildings that according to contemporary historians

tents were not pitched when the imperial camp was in residence. When Shah

Jahan visited Lahore, he often stayed here rather than at the imperial residence
in the fort.

The mausoleum for Mumtaz Mahal ( the Taj Mahal)

Of all Mughal monuments, the renowned Taj Mahal (Plate 1 3 1 ) best represents
the continuing imperial fascination with paradisical imagery. It was built as the
tomb of Shah Jahan’s favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal; after his death Shah Jahan

2 op

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 130. Tank, Shalimar garden, Lahore

was interred there as well, as probably he had long intended. While it is often
said that Shah Jahan planned to construct for himself a structure similar to the
Taj Mahal in black stone across the river, there is no evidence to support this.

The Taj Mahal has become one of the world's best known monuments. This

domed white marble structure is situated on a high plinth at the northern end
of a four-quartered garden, evoking the gardens of paradise, enclosed within
walls measuring 305 by 549 meters. Outside the walls, in an area known as
Mumtazabad, were living quarters for attendants, markets, serais and other
structures built by local merchants and nobles. The tomb complex and the
other imperial structures of Mumtazabad were maintained by the income of
thirty villages given specifically for the tomb's support. The name Taj Mahal is
unknown in Mughal chronicles, but it is used by contemporary Europeans in
India, suggesting that this was the tomb’s popular name. In contemporary

texts, it is generally called simply the Illumined Tomb (Rauza-i Munawara).

Mumtaz Mahal died shortly after delivering her fourteenth child in 1 63 1 . The
Mughal court was then residing in Burhanpur. Her remains were temporarily
buried by the grief-stricken emperor in a spacious garden known as Zainabad
on the bank of the river Tapti. Six months later her body was transported to
Agra, where it was interred in land chosen for the mausoleum. This land,
situated south of the Mughal city on the bank of the Jumna, had belonged to
the Kachhwaha rajas since the time of Raja Man Singh and was purchased from

210

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

Plate 13 1. Tomb of Mumtaz Mahal, known as the Taj Mahal, Agra

21 1

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

the then current raja, Jai Singh. Although contemporary chronicles indicate
Jai Singh’s willing cooperation in this exchange, extant farmans (imperial
commands) indicate that the final price was not settled until almost two years
after the mausoleum’s commencement. Jai Singh’s further cooperation was
insured by imperial orders issued between 1632 and 1637 demanding that he
provide stone masons and carts to transport marble from the mines at Makran^
within his ancestral domain, to Agra where both the Taj Mahal and Shah
Jahan’s additions to the Agra fort were constructed concurrently.

Work on the mausoleum was commenced early in 1632. Inscriptional
evidence indicates much of the tomb was completed by 1636. By 1643, when
Shah Jahan most lavishly celebrated the c Urs ceremony for Mumtaz Mahal, the
entire complex was virtually complete.

Some of the numerous artists who worked on the Taj Mahal are known from
contemporary sources. Makramat Khan, later associated with the supervision
of Shahjahanabad, and c Abd al-Karim, a master architect in Jahangir’s reign and
subsequently responsible for the Shah Burj in the Lahore fort completed in
1631-32, supervised the project. Amanat Khan was the chief calligrapher. No
architect’s name is recorded in the contemporary chronicles; however, a work
by the poet Lutf Allah identifies the poet’s father, Ustad Ahmad, later
Shahjahanabad’s architect, as the designer of Mumtaz Mahal’s tomb. 40 Shah
Jahan himself doubtless played a major role in the design and execution of this
tomb, as he did in his other architectural enterprises. Possibly the emperor’s
active role in design explains why Ustad Ahmad’s name is omitted in the
official chronicle written by Lahauri.

The entire complex was proportionally designed according to a series of
geometrically related grids, hence explaining not only the tomb’s perfect
balance but also that of the entire complex. 41 The initial part of the complex is
a red sandstone forecourt ( chowk-i jilo khana) south of the walled garden. This
area, like its counterpart at Jahangir’s tomb, was intended for the imperial
retinue. A magnificent red sandstone gateway, about 30 meters high and
leading into the walled garden, also serves as the northern wall of the forecourt.
The entrance is within a deeply recessed central arch that is surmounted by
small domed chattris recalling Akbar’s ceremonial entrance, the Buland
Darwaza, to his Jami c mosque at Fatehpur Sikri (Plate 23). The entire central
pishtaq is framed by a rectangular panel composed of black Arabic lettering
inlaid into a white marble ground and dated 1647. Four chapters from the
Quran comprise this text, including the final verses from a chapter entitled
Daybreak that invites the faithful to enter paradise (89: 28-30). This message is

40 M. Abdullah Chaghtai, “A Family of Great Mughal Architects,” Islamic Culture , xi, 1937, 200-09.

41 W. E. Begley and Z. A. Desai, Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb (Cambridge and Seattle, 1989),

p. 65.

212

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN’S PATRONAGE

similar to that given not in Quranic verse but in a Persian poem on the gateway
to Akbar’s tomb in nearby Sikandra (Plate $8). 42 This parallel is not fortuitous,
for the calligrapher responsible for both these gates was c Abd al-Haqq Shirazi,
who had been awarded the title Amanat Khan early in Shah Jahan’s reign.
Although Amanat Khan died about two years before the calligraphy on the
gate was completed, the close stylistic similarities and the programmatic unity
of all the verses on the complex suggest that his design continued to be
followed.

Beyond the forecourt is a four-part garden divided into quadrants by wide
waterways that resemble the streams of paradise mentioned in the Quran more
than the much narrower courses at earlier Mughal tombs. They meet at a large
tank in the gardens center. The garden is clearly modeled on a well-
established concept, the garden of paradise.

At the garden’s northern end, not in its center, is the splendid tomb. It is
flanked on the west by a red sandstone mosque surmounted by white marble
domes and on the east by a nearly identical structure called in contemporary
texts a guest house or mehman khana . The mosque’s facade is delicately inlaid
with white marble and in its spandrels are colored stones, while the interior is
richly polychromed.

Mumtaz Mahal’s superbly proportioned mausoleum is seated on the center
of a high square marble plinth that elevates the tomb above the garden. The
plinth is at the river’s edge, and to compensate for the effects of flooding it rests
on deeply sunk wells. At each corner of the plinth is a four-storied marble
minaret recalling those used in earlier Timurid funereal architecture, for
example the Gur-i Amir at Samarqand, as well as at Jahangir’s tomb (Plate 103)
whose construction was commenced by Shah Jahan only a few years before the
Taj Mahal. Surmounted by a bulbous white dome, the tomb is essentially
square in plan with corners chamfered to form a Baghdadi octagon. Each of the
tomb’s four faces is marked by a high central pishtaq flanked by deeply
recessed arched apertures. The design is controlled and balanced, creating a
unique architectural achievement that many consider one of the wonders of the
world.

The Taj Mahal has often been likened to Humayun’s tomb (Plates 18 and 19),
a building essentially Timurid in character and designed by an architect trained
in the Timurid homeland. This form, quite different from more nearly con-
temporary multi-tiered Mughal tombs, was probably adopted because Shah
Jahan was immensely proud of his Timurid ancestry (upon his accession,
remember, he adopted the very titles used by Timur).

A discussion of all the calligraphy on the Taj is in W. E. Begley, “Amanat Khan and the Calligraphy
of the Taj Mahal,” Kunst des Orients , xii, 1978-79, 5-39.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

The exterior of the mausoleum is primarily white marble. Inlaid colored
stones are more sparsely used here than on his palace architecture constructed
at the same time. As on the gate facade, rectangular panels with black
calligraphy rendering verses from the Quran are inlaid into the tomb’s white
surface. The play of light, reflected and absorbed by the marble surface, is a
dominant decorative device. Light continues to have a metaphoric role, associ-
ated with God’s presence, as it did in Jahangir’s monuments. While Islam
teaches that God is everywhere, nowhere would God’s presence be more
appropriate than in the gardens of paradise, that is, the ultimate abode of the
true believer. A series of panels carved with sprays of floral motifs form dadoes
along the tomb’s base. Although the matching of flowers with the leaves on a
single spray defies botanical identification, the flowers depicted - roses,
narcissus and tulips among others - came in Persianate culture to be associated
with the flowers of paradise; moreover, they are the flowers used to describe
the features of the beloved in Persian mystic poetry. The beloved on the most
profound level is a metaphor for God and also might refer to the beloved of the
emperor, his deceased wife here entombed.

The layout of the tomb’s ground floor is similar to that at Humayun’s tomb,
although here the surrounding chambers are linked in a more fluid fashion. As
at Humayun’s tomb, they are intended to represent the eight levels of paradise
in Islamic cosmology. The central chamber is octagonal. In its center is a
magnificent inlaid marble cenotaph marking the placement of Mumtaz Mahal’s
interred body in the crypt below. Shah Jahan’s cenotaph, similarly embellished,
is to the west of the deceased queen’s. The off-center position of Shah Jahan’s
cenotaph in no way indicates that it was added as an afterthought. In the tomb
of Btimad al-Daula, built in 1626-27, his wife’s cenotaph, not his, occupies the
more prominent central position. Surrounding the cenotaphs of Shah Jahan and
Mumtaz Mahal is a carved latticed marble screen that Shah Jahan ordered to
replace the gold one designed by Bebadal Khan, his master goldsmith. Shah
Jahan became worried that the gold one would be looted.

The interior, like the exterior, bears rectangular bands of Quranic verses,
more than on any earlier Mughal building. Quranic passages, many of them
entire chapters, are inscribed on the tomb complex. All those chosen for
inclusion here have a common theme, the reward promised to believers and the
fate of eternal doom that awaits non-believers on the Day of Judgment. 43 This
theme is appropriate for funereal architecture. The number of Quranic verses
and their emphasis on the Day of Judgment is reinforced by the location of the
mausoleum, not only at the end of the paradisical gardens but also on the
platform above them. That position matches the very location of God’s throne,

For this and material presented below, see Begley, “Amanat Khan,” and his “The Myth of the Taj
Mahal and a New Theory of its Symbolic Meaning,” Art Bulletin , lvi, i, 1979.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

IMPERIAL PRINCESS AND HEIR APPARENT

which, according to Islamic tradition, will be above the gardens of paradise.
This is illustrated in a diagrammatic drawing that Shah Jahan owned depicting
the assembled on the Day of Judgment. This drawing possibly served as a
model for the design of the Taj Mahal, intended not only as a tomb for his
beloved wife and himself, but also as a visual replica of the throne of God on
that momentous day. Although such an interpretation may seem radical, in
fact, evoking God’s throne was not an innovation here. Earlier it was a
common poetic conceit and continued in contemporary writing to be used as
an image for tombs, gardens, palaces and mosques.

All the designers of this unique tomb were highly educated not only in
mathematics, engineering and astrology, but also in literature and, of course,
theology. They were thus well prepared to formulate the tomb’s symbolic
program as the ultimate vision of paradise on earth. That such a program would
appeal to Shah Jahan is not difficult to accept, for paradisical imagery is found
in nearly every work he commissioned.

BUILDINGS OF THE CHIEF IMPERIAL PRINCESS

AND THE HEIR APPARENT

Nur Jahan’s impressive architectural output in Jahangir’s reign may have
motivated the leading ladies of Shah Jahan’s court to endow many of the major
buildings within cities. The foremost leading lady was Jahan Ara, entitled
Begum Sahib. Although not an architectural patron of Nur Jahan’s innovative
stature, Jahan Ara, Shah Jahan’s oldest surviving daughter and his constant
companion after Mumtaz Mahal’s death, provided many notable buildings.
Among these, the Jami c mosque in Agra (Plate u 6) and her serai and garden
known as Sahibabad, were discussed earlier in their urban context. These,
however, were not the only buildings she constructed.

Deeply religious, Jahan Ara wrote a biography of the Chishti saint Mu c in
al-Din and reputedly gave large sums to his dargah in Ajmer. She also added
the white marble pillared porch before the entrance of Mu c in al-Din’s tomb in
Ajmer. Today it is known as the Begumi Dalan, derived from her title, Begum
Sahib. Jahan Ara’s devotion to saints of the Chishti order is well known and
even recorded on her simple white marble tombstone (Plate 167), situated in
close proximity to Nizam al-Din’s own tomb in Delhi. Less well known is her
admiration for Mulla Shah Badakhshi of the Qadiri order and her subsequent
initiation into the order. The princess built a mosque for the mulla (Plate 132)
and spacious dwellings for the poor beneath Akbar’s Srinagar fort on Hari
Parbat hill.

Both Shah Jahan, visiting the recently constructed mosque in 1651, and the
French traveler Bernier had only praise for this single-aisled three-bayed
structure surrounded by high enclosure walls. While the grey stone used in

215

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 132. Mosque of Mulla Shah Badakhshi, Srinagar

construction was local, the delicately carved and cusped entrance arches recall
those on Shah Jahan’s contemporary palace architecture. These apertures are
actually extended brackets within a trabeated door frame, another feature
typical of Shah Jahan’s architecture.

Jahan Ara was not the only member of the royal family to build for Mulla
Shah. The heir apparent, Dara Shukoh, a mystic who drew from both Hindu
and Muslim traditions in his quest for spiritual fulfillment, also provided
buildings for his spiritual guide, Mulla Shah. On a hillside overlooking Dal lake
and set against the lofty mountains, he built a school, known as Pari Mahal.
Like the nearby Mughal gardens, the now ruined school is constructed on a
series of terraces. It has an austere stone-faced quadrangle enclosing spacious
vaulted chambers.

Religious architecture was not Jahan Ara’s only concern in Kashmir. The
garden and spring at Achibal were also a focus of her attention. Among the
works she ordered there in 1640 were a public viewing balcony (jbaroka ), a
bath, and living quarters. 44 Her patronage made such an impact on the site that
it came to be known as Sahibabad after Jahan Ara, who was known as the
Begum Sahib. Bernier described the rushing spring, its ancillary canals, the fruit

44 Kanbo, 11: 34-35.

2l6

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 133. Chauburji, Lahore

trees and the garden’s buildings as exceptionally handsome. Achibal remains
one of the most impressive of all Mughal sites (Plate 66), even though Jahan
Ara’s structures no longer survive in their original condition.

A contemporary writer listing the garden and estates of Lahore includes one
built by Jahan Ara, probably the garden whose gate is known as Chauburji
(Plate 133). The enormous gateway, marked by towering minarets at each
corner, is brick constructed with elaborate tile facing, a material common in
Lahore. This gate bears an inscription dated 1646, stating that Jahan Ara first
built the garden’s entrance gate, but then bestowed it upon Miyan Bai, prob-
ably a high-ranking attendant. Although Miyan Bai’s identity is obscure, she
possessed adequate wealth to construct a mosque in Ajmer (Plate 137), built
only a few years earlier, and to complete the garden herself.

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

On the whole we have less insight into Shah Jahan’s attitude toward the struc-
tures built by others than we do into Jahangir’s. This is because Shah Jahan
viewed the design and construction of architecture as his own special domain.
Even so, Bernier observed that nobles hoping to gain Shah Jahan’s favor
embellished Shahjahanabad at their own expense. At least they gained the

217

SHAH JAHAN

emperor’s attention, for he rewarded his nobles for their architectural
patronage. For example, Zafar Khan’s rank was increased for the construction
of a fine garden in Kashmir as well as for his diplomatic dealings with the
unruly population. 45

Western India

Thatta

Nowhere in western India is the debt to Timurid-inspired brick construction
and tile-covered surfaces more apparent than in the Jami c mosque in Thatta.
This is not surprising since the rulers of Sind whom the Mughals defeated had
come from Afghanistan. Persian inscriptions rendered in tile indicate that the
mosque was constructed between 1644 and 1647 at Shah Jahan’s order. How-
ever, since Shah Jahan was nowhere near Thatta at that time, there is little
reason to believe he was personally involved in the project. Nevertheless, the
unusually careful crafting of this brick structure and its magnificent profuse
tilework suggest that the mosque was subsidized by the imperial coffers. The
mosque may have been constructed in part to reverse the effects of a devas-
tating storm that had swept through the city in 1637. 46

The mosque’s prayer chamber’s plan and even elevation derive from older
conservative Timurid-influenced structures such as the Kachpura mosque in
Agra or the Akbari one in Ajmer (Plates 12 and 40). The surface and its decor,
however, are modeled on local brick buildings that in turn were based on
Iranian prototypes, for example, the nearby tomb built in 1601 for Mirza Jani
Beg, an earlier ruler of Thatta. There are no projecting eaves or other members
that articulate the building’s surface as characteristic of much Indo-Islamic
architecture. Rather, deeply recessed arches pierce the brick-and-tile covered
facade, producing a structure that appears to be composed of two contrasting
planes. The placement and color of the inlaid tiles on the facade recall this
monument’s Iranian ancestry. For example, unlike tiles in contemporary
Lahore, where only a single color was glazed on a tile, here multiple colors and
patterns appear on a single tile.

The interior is a showpiece of glazed tilework (Plate 134). The central dome
is embellished with tiles arranged in a stellate pattern designed to symbolize the
heavens, while the walls are covered with floral, geometric and calligraphic
patterns. The three mihrabs, also unusually designed, are composed of pierced
stone screens that allow the entry of light. Thus in an area where often a lamp
is carved referring to the Quranic verse that likens God’s presence to a lamp
within a niche, here actual light enters. The use of pierced screens allowing for
the entrance of light was common on Mughal funereal architecture, but unique

45 Maasir , 11: 1017. 46 c Inayat Khan, The Shah Jahan Nama, pp. 21 1-12.

218

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 134. Mihrab, Jami c mosque, Thatta

here to a Mughal mosque. While this mosque reveals a close adherence to forms
and techniques used earlier in this region, its plan and design suggest an
awareness of architectural traditions beyond these local roots.

Gujarat

Under Shah Jahan, Ahmadabad continued to be the major city of Gujarat. The
new buildings, both religious and secular, generally were designed in the
current Mughal style, not a local idiom, as we see in monuments provided by
A c zam Khan. Among his many works is the serai built in 1637-38. A c zam Khan
had been appointed governor of Gujarat in 1636, a position he held for six
years. The serai was located conveniently adjacent to the main entrance of the
city’s citadel. It has undergone alterations, although enough of the seventeenth-
century structure remains to determine its original appearance. This quad-
rangular building, measuring about 64 by 73 meters, is entered through a high
two-storied central portal (Plate 135). The stellate and net vaulting of the
interior chambers is typically Mughal. Neither this serai nor the similar nearby

219

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 135. Entrance, A c zam Khan’s serai, Ahmadabad

Shahi Bagh palace (Plate 75) belongs to local building traditions, but rather to
the Timurid-inspired Mughal tradition. The choice of such a style is hardly
surprising since A c zam Khan was not only a high-ranking Mughal amir but
also was extremely proud of his Iranian heritage, maintaining the customs of
his homeland throughout his life.

A c zam Khan was an enthusiastic builder. His structures are noted in
Mathura and Jaunpur, among other places, but the greatest number is in
Gujarat. These include three forts, one of which, Shahpur fort in Ranpur, still
survives, but his mosques, a well and baths are known only from written
references.

Rajasthan

At Ajmer during earlier Mughal reigns, building activity was largely concen-
trated within the dargah of Mu c in al-Din Chishti or in its vicinity (Plates 40 and
41). During Shah Jahan’s reign, only the emperor and his family provided
buildings within the shrine, while structures erected in close proximity,
provided by the religious or courtly elite, emulate the imperially sponsored
buildings.

For example, close to the esteemed shrine is the tomb of Khwaja Husain, the

220

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 136. Tomb of Khwaja Husain, Ajmer

dargah’s attendant early in Akbar’s reign (Plate 136). The tomb, dated 1637-38,
is located west of Shah Jahan’s recently completed Jami c mosque, just outside
the dargah’s compound. Provided by Khwaja Dilawar, this tomb is con-
structed of a cream-colored stone. It is a less refined version of Mu c in al-Din’s
nearby tomb, perhaps intentional since Khwaja Husain had restored the
shrine’s dome. In any event, Mu c in al-Din’s tomb was the monument to
emulate, as if to imply a link with the saint. Despite Khwaja Husain’s fall from
favor in Akbar’s reign, it is notable that he - not the many other attendants
of the shrine - was honored with a monumental tomb, as if to restore him to
favor.

Two mosques were built during Shah Jahan’s reign on the main street
leading to the dargah’s entrance. Each was built by a woman, one the daughter
of a renowned musician and the other by Miyan Bai, to whom Jahan Ara had
given a garden in Lahore. The more impressive is Miyan Bai’s mosque, con-
structed in 1643-44 and closely modeled on Shah Jahan’s mosque completed
some four years earlier within the nearby shrine. Five entrance arches
supported on slender piers, almost identical in appearance to those on the
nearby imperial mosque, form the east facade of Miyan Bai’s mosque; the
central mihrab (Plate 137) closely relates to those on Shah Jahan’s larger
mosque (Plate 106).

221

SHAH JAHAN

Vk •

Plate 137. Mihrab, Miyan Bai’s mosque, Ajmer

Mu c in al-Din’s house of meditation ( chilla kharia ), where the saint resided
until his death, was also a site of veneration. Located on a hill overlooking the
Ana Sagar tank, this small dwelling was restored in 1628 by Daulat Khan, the
revenue collector under Mahabat Khan, one of Shah Jahan’s very highest-
ranking nobles. The chilla khana’s inscription suggests that Daulat Khan
rebuilt it as a thanksgiving for the advancement he received when Mahabat
Khan was appointed governor of Ajmer and given the new title Khan-i
Khanan. It has been restored so frequently that its seventeenth-century
appearance cannot be determined.

This was a period when the relationship between Rajput princes and the
Mughal court was generally harmonious. For example, the patrons of an c Idgah
(Plate 138) built between December 1655 and January 1656 in Merta (Nagaur
District) state that they benefited from the kindness of the Marwar maharaja,
Jaswant Singh. These patrons, Farahat Khan and Misri, son of Bahadur Khan,
were probably Mughal agents. Their Tdgah reflects an interaction of Mughal
and Rajput forms.

Mughal architectural forms are apparent in the similarity of this c Idgah to

222

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 138. c Idgah, Merta

one constructed in 1628 in Patna by Saif Khan, a pre-eminent grandee of Shah
Jahan’s court. The Merta Tdgah simply consists of a west wall as do most
mosques of this type, allowing the entire Muslim community to gather in the
open area to its east. Like the Patna c Idgah, this one is marked by shallow
arched mihrabs in the west wall, each surmounted by an embattlement with
cusped kungura . Reflecting Rajput prototypes, however, are the proportion-
ately large chattris that mark the north and south ends of the structure. They
resemble local forms, especially chattris used in this part of India as Hindu
memorials for the deceased.

Interaction between Mughals and Rajput princes, however, was not always
mutually beneficial. Imperial orders (farmans) indicate that Raja Jai Singh of
Amber was prohibited from using the Makrana marble quarries in his own
watan jagir. They were utilized almost exclusively during the 1630s for
imperial buildings. With the commencement of Shahjahanabad in 1639, the
imperial monopoly over the stone quarried here probably continued until the
city’s inauguration in 1648. While restricting the raja’s own building activities,
considerable income was generated at the quarries. For example, Pahar Khan
was able to found a village, well and marble mosque, now totally ruined, in
conjunction with two of the quarries between 1650 and 1654. He was probably
a Silawat Muslim, the community traditionally associated with the lucrative
Makrana marble industry.

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 139. Muhammad Sharif Quraishi’s mosque, known today as the Kachehri

mosque, Didwana

Not everything built in Mughal times, even some works constructed in
response to imperial order, reflects recent building trends. For example, the
Kachehri mosque in Didwana (Nagaur District), built in 1638 by Muhammad
Sharif Quraishi following royal command, reveals no awareness of contem-
porary trends elsewhere (Plate 139). In plan, this structure consists of three
aisles of seven bays each. Slender faceted but wholly unembellished pillars,
similar to those on Jahangir-period structures, support a flat roof. Generally
the mosque’s plan and overall appearance adhere to earlier regional types such
as Nagaur’s Sur-period Chowk-ki Masjid dated 1553.

North India

Lahore to Delhi

Lahore was situated strategically on the way to Kabul, Multan and Kashmir.
Thus a strong imperial presence there was vital to holding important territories
to the north and west. The city, according to Manrique who visited Lahore in
1641, was embellished with magnificent buildings and gardens. Imperial work
at the Lahore fort as well as on the city’s outskirts continued into the 1640s and,
as at other major cities, stimulated similar activity by the nobility.

224

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 140. Wazir Khan’s mosque, Lahore

Wazir Khan, governor of Punjab and a distinguished physician of the
Mughal court, was among the active builders in Lahore. He embellished the
city with many buildings, among them a residence known as baradari , prob-
ably originally within a larger garden complex. This is a two-storied flat-roofed
structure surmounted by chattris. Its interior arrangement, typical since
Akbar’s time, consists of a central chamber surrounded by smaller ones. The
baradari was built outside the city walls, in the suburbs of Lahore, though the
majority of Wazir Khan’s buildings were inside its walls.

Wazir Khan held a great deal of land in the city near the Delhi gate. There he
provided a magnificent Jami c mosque (Plate 140) as well as shops, a serai,
houses and a large hammam whose income supported the mosque. The single-
aisled five-bayed mosque was constructed in 1634-35 at the grave-site of an
esteemed saint, Miran Badshah, whose tomb is located in the mosque’s open
courtyard. It is elevated on a plinth and entered through a high portal on the
east whose interior chamber is a Baghdadi octagon. The spectacular painted
prayer chamber of this mosque is modeled on that of the mosque of Maryam
al-Zamani dated 1613, also in Lahore. Other features, however - for example,
the high arched galleries surrounding the mosque’s deep central courtyard -
recall features of Iranian four -aiwan mosques. Four towering minarets, one in
each corner of the interior courtyard, dominate the building, an innovation at
this time.

SHAH JAHAN

Following regional building techniques, the mosque is brick constructed and
faced with tiles depicting floral sprays, arabesques and calligraphic panels, all
executed in glazed, cut and inlaid tile. The tiles' colors are distinctive, different
for example from the predominant blues and whites used in Multan, another
tile-glazing center in the Punjab. The prayer chamber’s interior as well as the
central pishtaqs recessed arch bear stellate vaulting and are richly polychromed
using a technique similar to that on Maryam al-Zamani’s mosque (Plate 6 2).

Tile-covered brick structures were the hallmark of sub-imperial Mughal
architecture in Lahore during Shah Jahan’s period and later, generally
distinguishing non-imperial works from most imperial ones. For example,
garden entrances were often tile-covered, including the Gulabi Bagh gate built
in 1655-56 by Mirza Sultan Beg, commander of the imperial fleet. Also
beautifully tile-faced is a single-aisled three-bayed mosque provided in 1650.
Commonly called the mosque of Dai Anga (a wet-nurse), inscriptions on its
facade indicate it was built under the supervision of Maqbul, whom some have
associated with Khwaja Maqbul, a trusted servant of Dara Shukoh.

The mosque of Maqbul, or Dai Anga as this building is still called, is
irregular in plan so that it could be aligned with the pre-existing road and still
face Mecca. The facade, adhering to a well-established type, is pierced by three
cusped entrance arches, a feature not seen on the earlier tile-covered mosques
of Lahore. The central pishtaq (Plate 14 1), higher than either flanking bay, is
covered with calligraphic panels and bands, floral sprays and arabesques all
executed in fine tilework inlaid in mosaic-like fashion.

The area between Lahore and Delhi came to be heavily traveled, necessitating
the construction at this time of additional serais. Serai Dakhni and Serai
Amanat Khan are the two most notable ones provided here by nobles during
this period. Although uninscribed, Serai Dakhni (Mahlian Kalan, Jalandhar
District) was probably constructed by a noble of considerable status. The tile
ornamentation on its monumental entrance arches and the polygonal corner
towers is remarkably similar to those features on Wazir Khan’s Lahore mosque
of 1634 (Plate 140). It suggests that either Wazir Khan, Shah Jahan’s governor
of the Punjab for seven years beginning in 1632, was the patron, or that the
artists responsible for his mosque also designed this serai. 47

Serai Amanat Khan, completed in 1640-41, was built by the calligrapher of
the Taj Mahal. Its tile-covered gateways are more highly refined versions of
those on Serai Dakhni. Bold calligraphic bands, rendered in blue and yellow
tiles, frame the facade of the serai’s main structure, that is, its gates and mosque.
According to the dedicatory inscription on the west gate, Amanat Khan
founded the serai, designing and writing this epigraph himself. Amanat Khan
retired to the serai in 1639 after the death of his brother, Afzal Khan, to whom

47 Begley, “Four Mughal Caravanserais,” 173.

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 14 1. Central bay of facade, mosque of Maqbul, also known as Dai Anga’s

mosque, Lahore

SHAH JAHAN

he was deeply attached. The tomb of the famed calligrapher, who died in 1644
or 1645, is just outside the serai compound.

The prime location of buildings on the Lahore-Delhi road probably
explains, in part, their reflection of current taste. That is the case even with
some buildings whose patrons are unknown, for example, the tomb of Hajji
Jamal, known locally as the tomb of the Shagird (student) in Nakodar
(Jalandhar District). This brick tomb, dated 1657, is a large square structure
with engaged octagonal corner minarets, recalling the general plan of Khusrau’s
tomb in Allahabad. This type had been well-established earlier in Mughal
architecture, but the ornamentation of this brick tomb reveals a close awareness
of contemporary buildings in Lahore. For example, the colored tile mosaic
(kasbi kari ), inlaid into patterns representing floral sprays in vases and fruit in
bowls, recalls ornament on the mosque of Wazir Khan and Jahan Ara’s
Chauburji.

More than almost any monument of the Delhi-Lahore road, Shaikh Chilli’s
madrasa and tomb in Thanesar (Kurukshetra District) reveal an awareness of
contemporary Mughal taste. They do not, however, simply imitate earlier
buildings or ornamentation, and their refinement suggests a patron of con-
siderable wealth and taste. The madrasa is a quadrangle constructed around an
open courtyard. Each interior side of the quadrangle has nine chambers, each
entered through a high arch. These deeply recessed entrances emphasize the
flatness of the surface, recalling Iranian prototypes.

The quadrangular school is brick-constructed, while the tomb (Plate 142)
and mosque, situated in an elevated walled compound to the south, are built of
buff stone. In plan and even to some extent in elevation, the octagonal tomb
continues a type seen as early as Akbar’s period, for example, the tomb of
Shah Quli Khan at Narnaul (Plate 43). The differences in detail, however,
are considerable. While the earlier Narnaul tomb has an elaborate facade
whose surface is articulated by both contrasting colors and a variety of
architectural shapes, the Thanesar tomb emphasizes the uniformity of its stone
and highly burnished plaster surface. The tomb’s style as well as its white
bulbous dome resting on an elongated drum are characteristic of Shah Jahan’s
time.

Muqarrab Khan’s renovation at Bu c Ali Qalandar’s shrine in Panipat was
considered sufficiently important that it was mentioned in Mughal texts. The
style chosen, however, is decidedly conservative. Muqarrab Khan, a high-
ranking officer under Jahangir, retired to serve in Shah Jahan’s reign as the
shrine’s hereditary custodian and probably had little contact with current
architectural trends. Within the shrine Muqarrab Khan built a walled enclosure
around the tomb of this fourteenth-century saint. There he also built his own
tomb (dated 1643-44) and a mosque. The central chamber of his tomb is
surrounded by a screened veranda (Plate 143). These stone-carved screens

228

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 142. Shaikh Chilli’s tomb, Thanesar

recall those at the late Jahangir-period tomb of Mirza c Aziz Koka in the dargah
of Nizam al-Din in Delhi (Plate 79), reflecting a screening type popular before
Muqarrab Khan’s retirement. Also conservative in form is his single-aisled
mosque built into the massive enclosure walls of the complex. Muqarrab Khan
amassed great wealth and is noted for building several other structures in his
native town of Kairana (Muzaffarnagar District).

Delhi and the central plains

Despite the extensive building campaign that created Shahjahanabad, Delhi
retains very few structures resulting from sub-imperial patronage in Shah
Jahan’s time. Those that do survive were built after Shahjahanabad was
founded. Only two merit discussion, one in characteristic Mughal style, the
other rather different. The Daiwali mosque, built in 1653-54, although heavily
rebuilt, retains many features typical of Shah Jahan-period structures, for
example, its single-aisled three-bayed plan and the entranceway crowned by
cusped arches. By contrast a mosque provided by Khwaja Turab in 1652-53
was built not in a style currently in favor but in an older mode, surprising in the

229

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 143. Muqarrab Khan’s tomb, Panipat

capital. This red sandstone mosque, no longer standing but known from old
descriptions, was situated close to the Ajmer gate.

According to one European traveler, the area around Nizam al-Din’s dargah
infrequently was visited by members of the Mughal court during Shah Jahan’s
reign. Nevertheless travel near the shrine was sufficient to support the con-
struction there of a new serai, built in 1642-43 by a daughter of Zain Khan, a
high-ranking noble. 48 The dargah figures little in contemporary writing, but
Shah Jahan did visit the shrine occasionally. When there in 1634 and again in
1638 he gave large sums to the tomb and shrine. 49 The shrine was enhanced in
1652-53 by the emperor’s governor of Shahjahanabad, Khalil Allah Khan, who
constructed a new veranda of red sandstone pillars around Nizam al-Din’s
Akbar-period tomb. These red pillars were replaced in the nineteenth century
by the marble baluster-type columns that are still present.

European travelers make clear that even after Shah Jahan shifted his capital
to Delhi, Agra still remained the largest city in all Hindustan. They comment
on the numerous serais and road markers ( kos minar) seen on the journey
between Delhi and Agra, but according to these travelers the road provided
little else of interest. Agra, by contrast, was a splendid city, although many of

48 List, II: 107-08. 49 For example, see Kanbo, 1: 518.

230

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 144. Tomb of Firuz Khan, Agra

the roads were too narrow and irregular. Every European comments on the
magnificent mausolea of Agra, most notably the tombs of Mumtaz Mahal and
Akbar (Plates 13 1 and 56). The Frenchman Tavernier observed that the court
eunuchs ( khwajasera ) in particular wanted similar tombs for themselves. He
noted that these wealthy eunuchs had been denied permission to go on the
Hajj, so that funds could be maintained within the confines of the Mughal
empire. 50 They thus lavished expenses on themselves, among other things con-
structing their own fine tombs. They did this since all unexpended monies
reverted to the state, thus ultimately encouraging a constant cash flow.

The mausoleum of the eunuch Firuz Khan (Plate 144), located just south of
Agra on the Dholpur road, is a splendid example. Firuz Khan first served under
Jahangir, and under Shah Jahan was responsible for the imperial harem until his
death in 1647 or 1648. While contemporary texts praise a garden he constructed
on the banks of the Jhelum, today he is remembered for his red sandstone tomb
situated in a walled enclosure west of a large tank. A double-storied gate leads
to the domed octagonal tomb, whose shape is similar to the contemporary

50 Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India , 2 vols., tr. V. Ball (2nd ed., London, 1925), 1: 89.

SHAH JAHAN

tomb of Shaikh Chilli in Thanesar (Plate 142). However, in contrast to the
uniform, largely unembellished surface on the Thanesar tomb, the surface of
Firuz Khan’s tomb is covered with exquisitely carved panels of contrasting
colored stones. The entrance gate also is composed of red sandstone whose
surface is carved prolifically (Plate 145).

Possibly Firuz Khan’s tomb was built in the 1640s, when he was at the height
of his career and had amassed great wealth. But the gate’s profuse ornamen-
tation is reminiscent of that on the Kanch Mahal or the mosque of Mu c tamad
Khan, both structures of Jahangir’s reign (Plates 81-83). 1 ° Shah Jahan’s time,
there is an increasing tendency toward sleek uncluttered lines. However, as
head of the harem, Firuz Khan would have had access to Shah Jahan’s private
quarters. There he might have seen buildings such as the Agra fort’s Shah Burj,
whose interiors were more profusely ornamented, though by inlaid stones, not
carving. Possibly then he was inspired by the private imperial quarters familiar
to him rather than by any older aesthetic.

Not only eunuchs but other courtiers, too, built tombs in Agra. One tomb,
known as the Chini-ka Rauza or the Tomb of China, after the profusion of
tilework on its exterior, is believed to be the grave of Afzal Khan, Shah Jahan’s
finance minister ( diwan-i kull). He died at the end of 1638. Contemporary
texts note that his tomb was across the Jumna from the city of Agra. This
corresponds with the location of the Chini-ka Rauza, on the banks of the
Jumna between Nur Jahan’s Nur Afshan garden and Ltimad al-Daula’s tomb.
The tomb was originally within a garden. The exterior tilework of this square-
plan tomb is badly damaged, but enough remains to indicate its original
character. Covering the facade are panels of floral patterns within niches that
recall the color, technique and patterns of designs on the near-contemporary
mosque of Wazir Khan in Lahore dated 1634. No other contemporary struc-
ture in the Agra region is embellished with tile, suggesting a link between the
tomb’s designer and Lahore.

Inside the tomb is a central octagonal chamber with interlinking ancillary
chambers at each of the corners. The interior is magnificently painted, although
it has been severely damaged (Plate 146). Quranic verses are carved in stucco
along the top of the tomb’s central chamber. Although no calligrapher’s name
is recorded, these verses were clearly executed by a master artist, probably
Amanat Khan, the calligrapher of the Taj Mahal, for the interred is Amanat
Khan’s brother, to whom he was devoted. 51

Amanat Khan’s name is inscribed on Agra’s Shahi Madrasa mosque (Plate
147), built in 1636. He designed and signed the Quranic inscriptions on the
three interior white marble mihrabs. The small single-aisled three-bayed
mosque is strikingly simple in appearance. A panel of cartouche and lozenge

51 Begley, “Amanat Khan,” 32.

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 145. Detail of carving on entrance, Firuz Khan’s tomb, Agra

medallions rendered in stucco frame the arched entrances in a manner similar
to Humayun’s Jami c mosque at Kachpura constructed over a century earlier
(Plate 12). The very high and wide entrance arches open directly to the austere
interior, allowing for excellent illumination. The only ornamentation is the
three marble mihrabs. The attention given to these mihrabs suggests that
perhaps Amanat Khan not only designed its calligraphy but also constructed
the mosque. The content of the inscriptions here, like those Amanat Khan
designed for the Taj Mahal and Akbar’s tomb, are cogently ordered. That is, the
outer band of verses on the central mihrab are ones that invite the faithful to
pray and to avoid outside temptations. The inner verses proclaim the victory of
Islam against unbelievers. 52

Despite the common belief that Shah Jahan built the enormous red sandstone
c Idgah in Agra (Plate 148), it is more likely a sub-imperial product and
possibly not even of Shah Jahan’s time. Little wonder that it is commonly
attributed to Shah Jahan, for several features of this c Idgah are characteristic of

52 Begley, “Amanat Khan,” 28.

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 146. Interior dome, Chini-ka Rauza, Agra

2 34

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 147. Shahi Madrasa mosque, Agra

his architecture. For example, it does not consist simply of the qibla or west
wall, but has an interior chamber resembling the c Idgah that Shah Jahan erected
outside the walled city of Shahjahanabad in 1655. The cusped entrance, beneath
a high cusped arch, stands within a tall central pishtaq. In the apex of the
central mihrab is a radiating sun whose rays lead to delicate scrolled inter-
secting tracery. This recalls similar patterns found on the vault of the Macchi
Bhavan’s baldachin in the nearby Agra fort and in the mihrabs of Shah Jahan’s
Jamb mosques in Shahjahanabad and the Agra fort. Despite these features -
unique in Shah Jahan’s period to imperial patronage - this building is
mentioned in no text; moreover, the structure lacks epigraphs found on all of
Shah Jahan’s large mosques. In fact, it is possible that this c Idgah was built later,
in Aurangzeb’s reign, when motifs formerly used exclusively by imperial
patrons became common. That possibility is further suggested by the overall
sense of height, often associated with Aurangzeb’s period.

About 1632, the noble Rustam Khan was awarded Sambhal, the site of the
earliest Mughal mosque, as his landholding. Although he served in many
regions, he continued to hold land in that vicinity for a considerable period.
Most landholdings were changed about every two years. But just as earlier Raja
Man Singh had held Rohtas for an extended time due to construction there,
Rustam Khan’s tenure of Sambhal may have been a reward for founding a new
city and fort known as Moradabad, about 25 km from Sambhal. He named this
new city Rustamabad, after himself, a name Shah Jahan did not sanction. He

235

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 148. c Idgah, Agra

then changed the name to Moradabad, after Prince Murad Bakhsh, one of Shah
Jahan s sons. This recalls Raja Man Singh’s unsuccessful attempt to name his
new city in Bengal after himself. More significantly, it suggests that the found-
ing of cities by the nobility still was subject to imperial scrutiny.

The inscription on the Moradabad Jamb mosque indicates that a noble
entitled Rustam Khan built it in 1636-37 on orders from Shah Jahan. The
mosque overlooks the Ganges river. It is a very large structure on a high mound
where, as the inscription notes, only infidels had resided. The Moradabad Jamb
mosque has undergone considerable renovation. Only by examining the
original east facade beneath the extensive modern veranda are its seventeenth-
century features recognizable. The central bay appears to have been higher than

the flanking side wings, typical of mosques at this time. In its original
condition, the mosque was double aisled.

Moradabad soon replaced nearby Sambhal as the area’s primary city.

However, Sambhal remained adequately important for Rustam Khan that in

1655 he provided an c Idgah there. The following year he repaired the Babur-

period Jami c mosque at Sambhal. Only twenty-five years earlier the mosque

had been repaired, suggesting the continued importance of this earliest Mughal
mosque.

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 149. Central mihrab, Saif Khan’s c Idgah, Patna

Eastern India

Bihar

When the prince Shah Jahan rebelled against Jahangir in 1623, he eventually
took Burdwan in Bengal and then established a counter-court in Rajmahal.
Subsequently he spent time at Rohtas, where his son Murad Bakhsh was
born. After his accession in 1628, however, he never returned to the eastern
hinterlands. Instead, powerful and effective agents such as his son Prince
Shah Shuja c , Shaista Khan and Saif Khan were entrusted with their adminis-
tration.

During Shah Jahan’s reign, Patna remained the primary city in Bihar
Province. Saif Khan, governor there from 1628 until 1632, did much to enhance
the city, paralleling his earlier largess when he was Jahangir's governor of
Gujarat. He built grand mansions, though they no longer survive, and at least
two religious structures. One is an c Idgah that he provided in 1628, his first year
as governor of Bihar. The central bay of its qibla wall, the only wall of this
c Idgah, is higher than the successively lower flanking ones. It contains a deeply
recessed tri-partite mihrab (Plate 149) whose demi-dome is marked by net
vaulting. Each side of the wall has an engaged octagonal turret. This feature,
seen earlier in Mughal architecture of Bihar and Bengal, such as Farid Bukhari’s

237

SHAH JAHAN

►

Plate 1 50. Central entrance, mosque of Hajji Tatar, Patna

Bihar Sharif mosque (Plate 94) and the Hajipur Jami c mosque, is derived from
the region’s pre-Mughal Islamic buildings.

Saif Khan also provided a theological school (madrasa) on the banks of the
Ganges. Peter Mundy when visiting the school considered it a magnificent
structure, apparently recognizing it as a product of the pan-Indian Mughal
aesthetic. Since Saif Khan was related to the queen, Mumtaz Mahal, this build-
ing’s imperial appearance is not surprising. Today, however, the complex is
sadly ruined. The large five-bayed mosque mentioned by Mundy is now faced
with a newer veranda, concealing its seventeenth-century character. Originally
built to house over a hundred students, the madrasa complex was lined with
large vaulted buildings, including a hammam. On the north side, overlooking
the river, are chattris to provide shade. Next to the mosque on the west was a
large double-storied entrance portal that Mundy describes as stately. Despite
its date of 1629, it was still not completed in 1632, Mundy observed, although
he indicates it was nevertheless in use. Foreign traders, for a fee, used the school
for lodging.

Several mosques were constructed at this time along Patna’s main city street

238

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 1 5 1 . Mosque of Habib Khan Sur, Bihar Sharif

paralleling the Ganges, though only a few still remain. The best preserved is
the mosque of Hajji Tatar. Exquisitely carved black stone frames the three
arched entrances on the east facade (Plate 150). Such black stone is used at
times on Mughal structures in Bihar and Bengal, but was commonly found
on the mosques of Bengal before Mughal times. It is never used on structures
outside of eastern India. The arched niches flanking the entrances and the
facade’s ribbed engaged columns are typical of mid-seventeenth-century
buildings in eastern India, for example on Habib Khan Sur’s mosque built
in 1638 at nearby Bihar Sharif. The mosque’s ties with local buildings are
thus evident, despite its overall conformity with the prevailing Mughal
aesthetic.

Habib Khan Sur held a position of great responsibility in Bihar, especially
during the frequent absences of the governor. He provided several works in
Bihar Sharif, all in proximity to the dargah of Sharaf al-Din Maneri (d. 1381),
one of the subcontinent’s most esteemed sufi saints. Among these is a refined
mosque dated 1638 (Plate 151). This single-aisled three-domed mosque is
modeled closely on Shaikh Farid Bukhari’s nearby Jahangir-period mosque
(Plate 94). It was thus almost certainly the product of a local but skilled
architect. Several years later, in 1646, Habib Khan Sur constructed a tank and
c Idgah near the shrine of the saint. The c Idgah is crudely constructed, revealing

2 39

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 152. Raja Bahroz’s mosque, Kharagpur

none of the refinements of the patron's earlier mosque, suggesting he had little
role in its design.

Yet another structure influenced by those in Bihar Sharif is the mosque Raja
Bahroz built in Kharagpur in 1656-57. Kharagpur, today in Munger District,
long had been the seat of a prominent Hindu family in Bihar. Although initially
allied with the Mughals, the Kharagpur rajas were defeated by them in the late
sixteenth century. One member of the family acknowledged Mughal authority
and converted to Islam. He was then reinstated on the Kharagpur throne. There
his successors built several mosques and many more tombs, suggesting that the
newly converted Kharagpur rajas consciously attempted to create a seat that
proclaimed their new religious affiliation.

The most magnificent of these is Raja Bahroz's single-aisled three-domed
mosque (Plate 152). Situated just north of the raja's palace on the bank of the
river Man, the mosque is elevated on a high plinth, an increasingly common
feature of later Mughal mosques. Visible from a great distance, this imposing
mosque is the largest one built in eastern India since Raja Man Singh's Jami c
mosque of c. 1600 in Rajmahal (Plate 37). The facade of Raja Bahroz's mosque,
now obscured by a modern veranda, adhered closely to the form of contem-
porary mosques in Bihar Sharif. Because of the sanctity held by Bihar Sharif,
those mosques doubtless were known to the converted family. Yet, as if to

240

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 153. Tomb of Malik Wisal, Akbarpur

outshine the mosques of this esteemed city, Raja Bahroz’s is even more
elegantly ornamented than the ones that serve as its models. Its polychromed
stucco relief is more profuse than the ornamentation of any other contem-
porary structure in eastern India. This is perhaps one way that these new
converts manifest their enthusiasm for Islam.

While the Gangetic valley including Bihar Sharif and Patna was completely
under Mughal control, the whole of south Bihar, especially the area around
Rohtas, remained semi-independent until Aurangzeb’s reign. Shortly after the
rebel prince Shah Jahan stayed at Rohtas, this hill fort fell into the hands of an
independent Hindu raja. In 1632 the Mughals regained the fort. Just four years
later, in 1636, a Mughal official at the fort, Malik Wisal, indicated considerable
confidence in long-term Mughal authority there by commencing his own tomb
at the base of the hill, in Akbarpur (Plate 153). There he also provided a step
well and garden. The tomb’s inscriptions tell us that Malik Wisal undertook the
construction at a time of deep sorrow in his life, although he found solace in his
relationship with Ikhlas Khan, the fort’s superintendent ( qal c adar)> which the
inscription compares to the relationship between a son and his father. This
probably reflects their difference in rank, not age. Ikhlas Khan, higher ranking,
would have treated his subordinate as a son, reflecting the Mughal emperor’s
relation with his nobles. The tomb is a simple structure consisting of a walled

241

SHAH JAHAN

rectangular enclosure entered on the north. In the center of this open courtyard
is a raised platform upon which are seven graves. A stone-faced wall mosque
punctuated by three mihrabs is attached to its western end. Just outside the
tomb is a massive step well, rare so far east in India. Since Mughal authorities
commonly were transferred from one part of the realm to another, they served
as vehicles for the movement not only of style, but also, as in this case, whole
new forms.

Bengal

The lasting impact of Mughal architecture was felt late in Bengal. Little had
been built here in Jahangir’s reign. Even at the beginning of Shah Jahan’s reign,
the pan-Indian Mughal aesthetic had not yet penetrated Bengal. For in the first
year of Shah Jahan’s reign, 1628-29, the Khondokar Tola mosque at Sherpur
was completed, a building clearly inspired by the nearby Kherua mosque of
1582 (Plate 51), indicating a reliance on local building traditions. This single-
aisled brick-constructed mosque was provided by Sadr Jahan, a local religious
official.

Shortly after this, however, building styles began to reflect those at Mughal
centers throughout India. Several monuments of this period remain in Dhaka,
an important mercantile center and military outpost. An c Idgah of 1640-41 and
a serai known as the Bara Katra, dated between 1643 an d 1646, were provided
by c Abd al-Qasim, the administrator there. Little remains today of his once-
splendid serai. Its multi-storied entrance gate, however, still stands and is
similar to A c zam Khan’s serai entrance in Ahmadabad built less than a decade
earlier (Plate 135). The Tdgah was modeled closely on Saif Khan’s Patna Tdgah
of 1628.

The mosque inside Dhaka’s Lalbagh fort, dated 1649, is typical of Shah
Jahan-period architecture in Bengal (Plate 154). For example, the faceted
recessed arches of the central entrance are also seen on the nearby Bara Katra
and the contemporary mosques of Rajmahal. Its cusped arches and rows of
recessed niches give this single-aisled three-bayed mosque a more refined
quality than those in contemporary Rajmahal. In spite of its fluted domes, an
eighteenth-century restoration, it remains the best example of the fully mature
Mughal mosque-type of this period in Bengal. 53

Rajmahal (Akbarnagar), not Dhaka, was the capital of Bengal between 1639
and 1659. Shah Shuja c , one of Shah Jahan’s sons, resided there as governor. A
great deal was built at Rajmahal during his governorship. Although Shah
Shuja c was a prince, he was not in Shah Jahan’s eyes a serious contender for the
throne. Fie, however, aspired to kingship and was the first of Shah Jahan’s sons

53 Catherine B. Asher, “The Mughal and Post-Mughal Periods,” in George Michell (ed.), The Islamic
Heritage of Bengal (Paris, 1984), 200.

SUB-IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

Plate 154. Mosque, Lalbagh fort, Dhaka

to declare himself emperor when he believed his father was dying in 1657. His
buildings in Rajmahal and elsewhere in Bengal reflect his imperial aspirations.

He provided Rajmahal with a palace, although only a small portion of it
remains. Europeans who visited it describe a splendid complex whose grounds
were divided into a series of symmetrically arranged quadrangles, suggesting
that the palace plan was similar to the design of imperial palaces at Agra and
Lahore. The best preserved surviving palace building, known as the Sangi
Dalan (Plate 155), has a curved bangala roof on the side that overlooks the
Ganges, recalling those at Shah Jahan's Lai Mahal in Bari and the Agra fort's
windows at which the emperor presented himself to the public (Plates 1 13 and
127). Polished black stone pillars, essentially simple versions of those on Shah
Jahan's Shalimar garden pavilion in Kashmir, support three cusped arches.
Overlooking the river, this chamber was used by the prince, possibly as his
private quarters or perhaps as a public viewing balcony, functions also
suggested by notations on early plans made by European visitors.

Lining the main road between the palace and Raja Man Singh's earlier Jami c
mosque are several mosques apparently built during this time. Above the
central doorway of these brick buildings are recessed panels that once held
dedicatory slabs, all of them now lost. Nevertheless, the Sirsi mosque, the
Raushan mosque, and the Mahagan Toli mosque, among others, probably date

2 43

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 155. Palace pavilion, known today as the Sangi Dalan, Rajmahal

to the time Shah Shuja c was governor. They all bear features similar to those on
the mosque Shah Shuja c built immediately across from his palace. Among these
features are the four corner turrets, an established Bengali form, and engaged
columns flanking the central entrance. While the patrons of these Rajmahal
mosques remain unknown, probably none of these small structures was built
by the governor himself. Just as Bernier observed that Shah Jahan’s nobles at
their own expense embellished much of Shahjahanabad to gain favor with the
emperor, so, too, in Rajmahal, we may imagine nobles and wealthy merchants,
eager to curry favor with Shah Shuja c , the governor, took upon themselves the
responsibility of embellishing his capital city.

Shah Shuja c not only built at his city of Rajmahal, he also capitalized on the
religious significance of Gaur, the ancient citadel of the independent Bengal
sultans. Even in a city such as this, with its own established architectural
tradition, the Mughal style now prevailed. The focus of Gaur’s sacral signifi-
cance long had been the Qadam Rasul, a domed square-plan structure that had
been built in 1530, well before the Mughal conquest of Bengal. Housing an
impression said to be the Prophet Muhammad’s footprint, the shrine’s import-
ance continued into Mughal times. Shah Shuja c embellished the grounds of
the Qadam Rasul. He built rest houses and a monumental gate known as the

244

THE NON-MUSLIM NOBILITY

Plate 156. Lukochori Darwaza, Gaur

Lukochori Darwaza (Plate 156), a three-storied gateway rendered entirely in
the imperial Mughal manner, radically different from the earlier architecture of
Gaur.

In addition, Shah Shuja c granted his spiritual mentor, Shah Ni c mat Allah,
funds to construct a mosque, khanqah and other buildings in Gaur’s southern
suburb. This area, known as Firuzpur, is today just inside the Bangladesh
border. The tomb appears to be modeled on the ground floor of I c timad
al-Daula’s tomb in Agra (Plate 71). The mosque is the single-aisled three-bayed
type so popular in Rajmahal during this time. The proportionately small
entrance arch lends a weighty quality to the mosque, reminiscent of the older
Gaur style. While the mosque’s exterior has no net patterning in stucco, it does
appear in the central mihrab and pedentives of the interior, recalling the
Raushan mosque in Rajmahal datable to the mid-seventeenth century. By
providing these buildings in Gaur, Shah Shuja c attempted to revive the status of

the former Bengal capital and to associate his name with this revival.

♦

BUILDINGS UNDER THE NON-MUSLIM NOBILITY

Shah Jahan, more orthodox than his predecessors, is generally depicted as
considerably less tolerant of non-Muslims. His destruction of Hindu temples,

2 45

SHAH JAHAN

for example, is often cited. However, he did so only near the beginning of
his reign and then largely for political purposes, not iconoclastic ones. His
destruction of the enormous temple at Orchha in 1635, for example, was an
imperial response to long-term rebellion on the part of the raja Jhajar Singh. 54
Similarly, some believe that Shah Jahan’s demolition of the Mewar raja’s
renovations of the Chitor fort was intended as an anti-Hindu expression. It
was, however, a tactical measure. The raja’s renovations had not been
authorized, thus breaking an older agreement. Moreover, Shah Jahan wished to
insure that his long-time Mughal opponent, recently turned unwilling ally, did
not develop a secure base for attack. 55

All the same it is notable that few significant or large-scale temples in north
India date to this period, except in Bengal, an area of considerable distance from
the center. Instead, most structures erected by non-Muslims are secular. They
are either palaces or fortified structures built by vassal princes, largely Rajput,
or they are domestic and public structures built by non-Muslim Mughal nobles
in their landholdings and ancestral homes.

Among the most notable examples of the latter type are the mansion and
serai of Rai Mukand Das in Narnaul. Mukand Das, a native of Narnaul, served
as Shah Jahan’s superintendent of grants. His multi-storied mansion is a rare
example of a nobleman’s house that maintains its original design without
subsequent modernization. The general layout of the multi-storied interior, as
well as many of the design elements, reveal an awareness of contemporary
trends. The mansion is essentially organized around two small open courtyards
(Plate 157). The rooms around one were probably intended for men, those
around the other for women, following a model of larger Rajput palaces in
Rajasthan.

Many Rajasthani princes extended older palaces or built new ones during
this period. Particularly interesting are Mirza Raja Jai Singh’s additions to the
Kachhwaha palace at Amber. This house, more than any other in Rajasthan,
continued to serve the Mughals loyally and was highly valued by them. Jai
Singh ascended the throne of Amber in 1622, near the end of Jahangir’s reign,
and died in 1667, ten years into Aurangzeb’s reign. Like his great-grandfather.
Raja Man Singh, he was the most powerful non-Muslim noble in the Mughal
empire. Unlike his great-grandfather, however, Jai Singh invested little money
in architecture outside his ancestral domain, but built lavish additions to the
Amber palace.

Work on Mirza Jai Singh’s Amber palace was underway by 1637, for in that
year Shah Jahan issued a decree (farman ) ordering Jai Singh to cease work on
his buildings there since all the marble cutters were needed for work at Agra,
the imperial capital. The Amber palace probably was completed considerably

54 Kanbo, 11: 102-03. 55 Kanbo, 111: 147.

THE NON-MUSLIM NOBILITY

Plate 157. Interior courtyard, Rai Mukhand Das’ mansion, Narnaul

later, near the end of Shah Jahan’s reign or even at the beginning of Aurangzeb’s
reign, after the imperial demand for Makrana marble lessened. The most
notable structures added by Jai Singh include the white marble temple
constructed to house an image of Shila Mata brought from Bengal by Man
Singh and the buildings around two courtyards north of Man Singh’s
zenana.

The northernmost of these two courtyards is situated on an elevated terrace
above the palace’s large entrance court. In its northeast corner is a pillared
Audience Hall. The style of this hall makes it difficult to date. Either it was built
by Raja Man Singh before his death in 1614, or early in Jai Singh’s reign.
Constructed of pink and cream stone, the Public Audience Hall is a rectangu-
lar pavilion supported on all four sides by two rows of columns. The resulting
plan is similar to buildings constructed since Akbar’s time and associated with
imperial presence. The faceted pillars on the exterior have bases that recall the
carving on those at the Private Audience Hall at Fatehpur Sikri, as do the
brackets (Plate 32).

At the southern end of this courtyard is the Ganesh Pol, or Elephant gate
(Plate 158), named for its painted depiction of the Hindu elephant-headed deity
of auspicious beginnings on its central entrance. It serves as a monumental gate-
way into the palace’s private quarters. This gate, with its high entrance arch, is
derived in general plan and elevation from Mughal gates. However, the overall

M 7

SHAH JAHAN

Plate 158. Ganesh Pol, palace, Amber

appearance is considerably lighter and more delicate than any imperial project.
Further contributing to his delicate appearance are the floral sprays and
arabesques painted over the entire facade. The emphasis on the structure’s
height, characteristic of late seventeenth-century architecture, suggests that it
was built late in Jai Singh’s reign.

The Ganesh Pol leads to a magnificent quadrangle which more than any
other part of this palace is based on Shah Jahan’s palace pavilions (Plate 1 13).
The most impressive building here is the double-storied Jai Mandir, also called
the Shish Mahal (Plate 159). It is centrally positioned on the east overlooking
the lake below. Its second story is covered with a curved bangala - type roof,
inspired by that on Shah Jahan’s public viewing balcony at the Agra fort. The
use of this curved roof suggests that it was provided after Aurangzeb assumed
the throne. After his accession, forms such as the baluster column and bangala
roof, once reserved for imperial use, came to be more broadly based. The
interior, too, resembles Shah Jahan’s palace buildings. On the ground floor,
the dado has carved floral sprays, more closely spaced than on imperial proto-
types. The net and stellate vaulting of the ceiling is encrusted with mirrors,
recalling the decor of pavilions at the Lahore fort’s Shah Burj (Plate 107). This
area, in front of the older women’s quarters, probably served as the raja’s
quarters.

THE NON-MUSLIM NOBILITY

Plate 1 59. Jai Mandir, also known as the Shish Mahal, palace, Amber

Although Hindu temples were constructed in various parts of India
throughout Shah Jahan’s reign, especially in princely Rajasthan, the only region
where temple construction has been systematically studied is Bengal. As noted
in the previous chapter, terracotta temples there during the Mughal period took
on an increasing regional character, borrowing from both the pre-Mughal
Islamic architecture of Bengal and also well-established Hindu traditions.
During Shah Jahan’s period, the regional temple types continued to be
constructed. For example, a temple dedicated to Raghunatha at Ghurisa
(Birbhum District) is dated 1639. It has a chau chala roof (a vault with four
curved sides that meet at a curved central ridge), a type characteristic of Bengali
architecture at this time. A second temple-type developed, called a ratna
temple, which was surmounted by several spires. The Gokula-Chand temple of
1639 at Gokulnagar and the Shyam Raya temple of 1643 at Bishnupur, both
in Bankura District, are of this type. Each is surmounted with a central
octagonal pavilion and flanked by a spire at each of the roof’s four corners.
While temples such as this had virtually no impact on architectural traditions
outside of Bengal after this period, they represent an important regional form,
indicating the continuing evolution of Hindu architecture under Muslim
rulers.

SHAH JAHAN

CONCLUSION

Shah Jahan’s active involvement in the design and production of architecture
far exceeded that of any other Mughal emperor. Themes initially established in
the buildings of his predecessors were finely honed and reached maturity under
Shah Jahan. For example, the long-standing notion that imperial Mughal
mausolea were symbols of paradise was manifest most precisely in the Taj
Mahal. More than any other ruler, Shah Jahan sought to use architecture to
project the emperor’s formal and semi-divine character. He did so, in part, by
adapting motifs found in western art and indigenous Indian architecture, such
as the baluster column and baldachin covering, giving them a unique imperial
context. The charged meaning of these motifs, however, is only found in Shah
Jahan’s reign, for they are seen on the earliest non-imperial structures of his
successor’s reign. He built many more mosques than did his predecessors and
used this building type to project his official image as the upholder of Islam.
This is a trend which accelerates under Aurangzeb, Shah Jahan’s son and
successor.

Just as the symbolic content of Mughal architecture peaks under Shah Jahan,
so, too, the style favored by this ruler introduces a new classicism in form and
medium. Favored is white marble or burnished stucco surfaces that emulate
marble. While marble had been used sparingly by Akbar and Jahangir, it
dominates Shah Jahan’s palace pavilions, mosques, and the most important
tomb he constructed, the Taj Mahal. The marble on secular structures, most
notably palace pavilions, often is elaborately inlaid with multi-colored precious
stones and at times ornately carved. By contrast, the marble surface of religious
buildings, especially mosques, remains considerably more austere, suggesting a
division between secular and sacred arts not seen previously. Even enormous
public structures, such as his Jami c mosque of Shahjahanabad, while faced
primarily with red sandstone, were profusely inlaid with white marble.

Shah Jahan’s architectural style is deeply rooted in the buildings of his
predecessors. The tomb of Mumtaz Mahal marks a return to Humayun’s
Timurid tomb-type, and indeed the interest in elaborate Timurid vaulting types
is heightened in Shah Jahan’s reign. Trabeated pavilions, as seen in earlier
Mughal reigns, grace Shah Jahan’s palaces, hunting estates and gardens. Now,
however, there is an emphasis unprecedented in Mughal architecture on the
structure’s graceful lines and a harmonious balance among all the parts.

Shah Jahan’s personal involvement in architecture and city planning appears
to have motivated others, especially the high-ranking women of his court, to
build. While the emperor provided palace buildings and forts, these women and
the nobility assumed responsibility for embellishing the cities. Nowhere is this
seen more clearly than in his de novo city, Shahjahanabad, where mosques,
gardens, markets, serais and mansions were provided by the aristocracy.

250

CONCLUSION

As in other reigns, the nobility built in the provinces and areas outside the
capital. The number of surviving structures is great, reminding us that the
mechanisms of Mughal economy encouraged constant spending and cash flow.
Although we know less about the emperor’s reaction to these buildings than we
do about Jahangir’s response to structures built by his nobles in the provinces,
we see the strength of the elegant imperial taste promulgated by the emperor:
it is widely emulated across India.

CHAPTER 6

AURANGZEB AND THE ISLAMIZATION

OF THE MUGHAL STYLE

Shah Jahan's third surviving son and successor, Aurangzeb, is generally con-
sidered the last effective Mughal ruler. Under his successors the Mughal
domain diminished. Even in Aurangzeb's reign, persistent warfare in the
Deccan and increased factionalism among the nobility had an impact on the
empire's stability. Most believe that a lack of vitality in artistic production
paralleled this military and political instability. As a result, the architecture of
Aurangzeb and the later Mughals has largely been ignored. It should not be.

All the same, under Aurangzeb and his successors the framework of earlier
architectural patronage was changed. That is, under the earlier Mughals the
emperor was the model patron. The nobility generally regarded the type of
structures he built and the styles he favored as the ideal to emulate. Under
Aurangzeb, and especially under his successors, that changed. There was no
dynamic imperial patron, so the nobility and other classes built independently
of strong central direction, often employing styles and motifs that still echoed
those established in Shah Jahan's reign.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS DURING AURANGZEB’S REIGN

When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, most believed that he would not survive.
This sparked a war of succession among the imperial princes with Aurangzeb
emerging as victor. He first celebrated his coronation in Delhi's Shalimar
garden in 1658 and again the same year in the palace of Shahjahanabad, then
adding to his name the title c Alamgir (World Seizer). Although Shah Jahan
recovered and lived until 1666, he remained a prisoner in the Agra fort for the
rest of his life. Aurangzeb's brothers, including the former heir apparent Dara
Shukoh, were executed, murdered or, in the case of Shah Shuja c , pursued until
death.

Until 1681, Aurangzeb maintained his residence in Delhi. Among his most
pressing problems were on-going troubles with the rebel Maratha Shivaji
which finally ended in victory for the Maratha. Shivaji's death in 1680 did not
terminate the Maratha threat to Mughal authority, for his son Shambuji was no
less a warrior than his father. It was in pursuit of him that Aurangzeb perma-
nently left Delhi for the Deccan. The second half of Aurangzeb's reign was
spent in the Deccan where Shambuji and his Maratha successors continued to
plague Mughal forces until Aurangzeb’s death in 1707. As a result north India

2 5 2

aurangzeb’s patronage

received less imperial attention than previously, changing the nature of
architectural patronage there.

By the end of Aurangzeb’s fifty-year reign, the Mughal empire covered
nearly the entire subcontinent. The only area not under Mughal control was the
southernmost tip of India and a small area controlled by Afghans in the north-
west. This is comparable to the situation at the end of Akbar’s almost equally
long reign, when the Mughal empire stretched into the Deccan. However,
despite these seeming similarities, the differences were much deeper. Akbar
bequeathed to his successors the foundations of a stable empire, unshakable
until the early eighteenth century. By the time of Aurangzeb’s death, the fabric
of the empire had been weakened considerably by continuous warfare in the
Deccan, by Sikh uprisings as well as by rebellion of the various houses of
Rajasthan. Financially the empire was in dire straits. Aurangzeb also failed to
maintain balance in the Mughal administrative system, most notably in the
matters of rank ( mansabdari ) and landholdings. Factionalism among the
nobility thus increased. Moreover, Aurangzeb’s progressive inability to
assimilate local elite chieftains (zamindars) into the Mughal government
estranged yet another influential group. The alienation of these groups under-
mined a critical feature of the Mughal state. That is, Aurangzeb’s predecessors
had viewed themselves as fathers to their people and made their presence felt
through close contact with the highest-ranking nobility, who, in turn, main-
tained close contact with lesser nobles, petty princes and local landholders.
Aurangzeb failed to maintain this system effectively, thus essentially pro-
moting factionalism and, by extension, rival patronage systems.

aurangzeb’s patronage

Attitude toward Hindu construction

Condemned by some as a religious zealot and praised by others as an upholder
of Islam, Aurangzeb and his religious policies are among the most misunder-
stood of all Mughal history. There is no doubt that Aurangzeb was a devout
Sunni Muslim. Highly educated, he spent his leisure reading the Quran and in
prayer. Aurangzeb’s court also assumed an increasingly orthodox atmosphere.
For example, the practice of jbaroka , the daily presentation of the emperor to
his subjects, was abandoned since it was derived from the Hindu notion of
darshan. Court dancing girls and musicians were released, but only ostensibly
for religious reasons. Aurangzeb did not have the resources to maintain them.

More controversial than the increasing austerity of the court and its ritual is
Aurangzeb’s attitude toward Hindu construction, especially temples. Com-
mon belief holds that he destroyed massive numbers of Hindu temples and
banned the construction of new ones. True, he did not encourage the

^53

AURANGZEB

construction of new temples, continuing a policy already in practice under his
father, Shah Jahan. But when Aurangzeb did destroy temples, he did so not out
of bigotry but as a political response when his authority was challenged. For
example, the Keshava Deva temple in Mathura, built by the Mughal amir Raja
Bir Singh and supported by imperial grants, was destroyed to retaliate for
seriously disruptive Jat uprisings in the Mathura area in 1669-70/ Mughal
losses were heavy. c Abd al-Nabi Khan, the commandant of Mathura {faujdar )
and the patron of that city’s Jamb mosque (Plate 1 77), was among the Mughals
killed. 2 Temples in Cooch Behar were destroyed in 1661 after the local rajas
there had defied Mughal authority. 3 Those Hindus who remained loyal were
rewarded, indicating that temple destruction in Cooch Behar was politically
motivated, not simply an aggressive act against Hindus. The demolition of
temples as Udaipur, Jodhpur and other places in Rajasthan in 1679 and 1680,
too, was a response to long-term recalcitrance on the part of the ranas there. 4
Similarly the destruction of Raja Man Singh’s famous Vishvanath temple in
Benares was largely to punish Hindus, especially those related to the temple’s
patron, who were suspected of supporting the Maratha Shivaji. 5 Many of these
temples desecrated by Aurangzeb, including the largest and most notable
among them, had been built by Mughal amirs. In each case, Aurangzeb reacted
to the violation of a long-established allegiance system binding emperor and
nobility by destroying property maintained previously with Mughal support.
Thus in a sense Aurangzeb destroyed state-endowed property, not private
works.

Some of Aurangzeb’s alleged destruction is more legendary than real. He is
commonly accused of destroying the caves at Ellora and other sites in modern
Maharashtra, but these assertions are made in considerably later sources. 6 They
are not mentioned in any contemporary Persian chronicle, where such destruc-
tion is generally reported in terms of glorious holy war {jihad). Rather,
Aurangzeb’s own writings praise the beauty of Ellora. Aurangzeb himself says
the caves must be the work of Almighty God, 7 indicating that he had an
aesthetic sensitivity that many assume he lacked, in fact, a sensitivity not

Mathura/’ 424.

2 Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri, tr, J. Sarkar (Calcutta, 1947), pp. 57-61. Henceforth cited as

Saqi Must c ad Khan.

3 Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of c Alamgir, tr. S. M. Haq (Karachi, 1975), pp. 1 54, 1 57.

4 Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i ( Alamgiri , tr. T. Ahmad (Delhi, 1978), pp. 1 30, 1 57 note 7; Saqi Must c ad
Khan, p. 130; Khafi Khan, History, pp. 266-67.

5 S. N. Sinha, Subah of Allahabad under the Great Mughals (New Delhi, 1974), pp. 65-68.

6 For example Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb, 5 vols. (Calcutta, 1925-30), ill: 285, cites a late
source and suggests that the failure to ruin other sites was due to the intervention of a deity or to
poisonous snakes and insects.

7 c Inayat Allah Khan Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat, ed. and tr. S. M. A. Husain (Delhi, 1982), p. 27 of
English text and 13 of Persian text. Also, see Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 145.

254

aurangzeb’s patronage

limited to Islamic patronized structures. Moreover, decrees (farman ) testify
that imperial support was provided for temples throughout Aurangzeb’s
reign. 8 These orders were issued either to protect the rights of Hindu subjects
or to reward service rendered by Hindus.

Imperial mosques

Contemporary histories relate that Aurangzeb repaired numerous older
mosques. 9 The frequent mention of his repair and construction of mosques
suggests that this was the architectural enterprise he most highly valued. He
reputedly repaired more mosques than any of his predecessors, not just Mughal
mosques but also those built under the Tughluq, Lodi and Deccani sultans as
well. 10 In other cases Aurangzeb was attentive to the maintenance of mosques. 1 1
Once he ordered a lamp for a mosque in an old outpost, and on another
occasion he wrote to his prime minister ( wazir ) to express dismay that the
carpets and other furnishings of the palace were in better condition than those
of the palace’s mosque.

After capturing Maratha forts, Aurangzeb often ordered the construction of
a mosque. In part they were erected from religious fervor and in part they
served as a symbol of Mughal conquest. These mosques were probably
constructed quickly of locally available materials. Other mosques he built filled
a genuine need. For example, in Bijapur city he built an c Idgah since there was
no suitable one there. 12 In the Bijapur palace he added a mosque for his personal
use. To gain special merit, the emperor even laid some of the stones himself. 13
Concerned that all remaining materials should not be used for impious
purposes, Aurangzeb ordered them buried. 14

Shortly after his accession, Aurangzeb ordered a small marble chapel, known
today as the Moti or Pearl mosque, to be constructed inside the Shahjahanabad
fort (Plate 160). Shah Jahan had built no mosque inside this fort, using instead
the large Jami c mosque for congregational prayers. Aurangzeb, however,
wanted a mosque close to his private quarters. Five years under construction,
his exquisite mosque was completed in 1662-63 at considerable personal
expense. It is enclosed by red sandstone walls that vary in thickness to com-
pensate for the mosque’s angle, necessary to orient the building toward Mecca,
and at the same time to align it with the other palace buildings. Entered on the

8 Jnan Chandra, “Aurangzib and Hindu Temples,” Pakistan Historical Society , 5, 1953, 249-54.

9 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 315.

10 Khafi Khan, History , pp. 455-56, 465; and c Aqil Khan Razi, \Vaqi c at-i ‘Alamgiri, ed. Z. Hasan (Delhi,
1946), pp. 45-46.

11 For the examples given, see Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 249, and Aurangzeb c Alamgir, Ruka c at-i-
c Alamgiri y tr. J. H. Bilimoria (1908; reprint ed. Delhi, 1 972), p. 106.

12 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 243.

13 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 208. 14 Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat, p. 47.

*55

AURANGZEB

Plate 160. Facade, Moti mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

east, the compound consists of a courtyard with a recessed pool and the
mosque building.

Although the mosque and its courtyard are small, about 9 by 15 meters
internally, the high walls, over which nothing can be seen, emphasize the sense
of compact verticality creating a sense of spatial tension, a characteristic of
Aurangzeb’s architecture. This is further underscored by the three bulbous
domes on constricted necks, the central one rising above the others. These
domes were originally gilt-covered copper that resembled gold, drawing
attention to the height. They later were replaced with white marble domes, still
in place.

Closely modeled on the Nagina mosque (Plate 1 1 4), the prayer chamber,
entered through three cusped arches, is divided into two aisles of three bays
each with an ancillary corridor on the north for use by the court ladies. The
marble surfaces here and on the courtyard walls (Plate 16 1) are more ornately
rendered than those on Shah Jahan’s mosques (Plates 105, 114, 1 1 5 and 124).
Here arabesque foliate forms - unique during this period to imperial palace
mosques - cusped arches, and even architectural members are elegantly carved.
They serve as a contrast to the much more sedate ornamentation of Shah
Jahan’s religious edifices. The immediate source of this ornate decor is surely

256

aurangzeb’s patronage

Plate 161. Courtyard walls, Moti mosque, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

the organic carving on Shah Jahan’s later palace architecture, for example, the
nearby throne of Shah Jahan’s Public Audience Hall (Plate 1 19).

Aurangzeb’s Badshahi mosque (Plate 162) also reveals an ornateness and
emphasis on spatial tension seen in the Moti mosque, but on a much larger
scale. Adjoining the Lahore fort, the Badshahi mosque remains the largest
mosque in the subcontinent. An inscription over the east entrance gate
indicates that it was built in 1673-74 by Aurangzeb under the supervision of
Fidai Khan Koka, the emperor’s foster brother. Prior to this time Lahore had
no monumental mosque capable of serving the population. Aurangzeb’s con-
struction of this mosque follows Shah Jahan’s provision of large mosques close
to the Agra and Delhi forts.

Situated on a raised platform, the mosque is approached by high steps. The
east entrance is a large vaulted gatehouse made of red Sikri sandstone. It opens
to an enormous courtyard. Built to hold 60,000 persons, the mosque served an
unusual dual function of c Idgah and Jami c mosque. The prayer chamber
adheres generally to the plan of Shah Jahan’s Delhi mosque (Plate 124) con-
structed about two decades earlier, although it is considerably larger.

While closely modeled on Shah Jahan-period congregational mosques, the
Badshahi mosque reveals a greater sense of spatial tension in keeping with the
new aesthetic established early in Aurangzeb’s reign. This is achieved, in part,
by the sheer scale of the complex and by the facade’s arched openings that are

2 57

AURANGZEB

Plate 162. Badshahi mosque, Lahore

small in comparison to the building’s overall massive size. Further under-
scoring this spatial tension are the bulbous domes and the minarets at the
compound corners that emphasize the sense of verticality.

The ornamentation, like that on Aurangzeb’s Moti mosque, is less chaste
than on Shah Jahan’s religious buildings. Here floral designs, cusped arches and
cartouche motifs are outlined with white marble inlaid into the red surface. In
lieu of the smooth flowing lines that characterized ornament on Shah Jahan’s
mosques, a series of short curved lines form the designs, thus creating a sense
of ornateness that becomes characteristic of later Mughal design. The mosque’s
stucco interior relief, including baluster columns (Plate 163), is polychromed to
achieve the effect of inlaid stone seen earlier in Shah Jahan’s architecture.

Aurangzeb’s mosques built in close association with palaces - primarily
those dating to the time of his father, Shah Jahan - are considerably more ornate
than the mosques of Shah Jahan’s reign. Their decor, however, is inspired by
Shah Jahan’s palace architecture. Ornateness formerly reserved for palaces is
now found in mosques which to Aurangzeb were the most significant archi-
tectural type. As palaces were less important to him, he curtailed some of the
earlier court ritual; for example, in his eleventh regnal year he abolished the
practice of jharoka. Significantly after this time, his most elaborate mosque, the
Badshahi mosque, was built. For Aurangzeb, personal devotion and the ritual

258

aurangzeb’s patronage

Plate 163. Detail of interior stucco, Badshahi mosque

of prayer were more meaningful than courtly ritual such as the viewing of the
emperor at th ejharoka that had developed to bolster the semi-divine character
of earlier Mughal rulers. Thus, by extension, features formerly associated with
royalty were now associated with piety and Islam. Most telling is the use of the
baluster column and fulsome floral forms found earlier on the marble throne in
the Shahjahanabad palace’s Public Audience Hall, but now found in what
Aurangzeb must have considered a strictly religious realm.

By contrast to the ornateness of Aurangzeb’s palace mosques is the
impressive red sandstone c Idgah at Mathura (Plate 164), also certainly spon-
sored by Aurangzeb. This c Idgah, a mosque for the annual c Id celebration,
replaced the temple of Keshava Deva, destroyed in 1669-70 by Aurangzeb’s
command to avenge on-going insubordination by Jats. One chronicler notes
that after the temple’s destruction a large sum was spent on the construction of
a mosque. The patron’s name is not mentioned by the Mughal chronicler, but
a European visiting Mathura within the decade states that it was built by
Aurangzeb himself. The structure’s size, 52 by 20 meters, as well as its appear-
ance suggest imperial patronage. Situated high on a hill, the Tdgah is built on

2 59

AURANGZEB

the foundations of the destroyed temple. The facade is similar to that of the
contemporary Badshahi mosque. For example, all the entrances are cusped, but
they have no inlaid marble work. The mosque’s double-aisled multi-bayed
interior also bears little ornamentation; a large recessed tri-partite central
mihrab is its most striking feature.

This mosque bears considerably less ornamentation than do the other two
built by Aurangzeb, but they were associated with imperial palaces. The
Mathura c Idgah, however, was situated nowhere near a palace. Rather, it was
built at Mathura, a city then of secondary importance, on top of a demolished
temple, to remind rebel forces that non-Muslims would be tolerated only so
long as Mughal authority was obeyed.

Tombs

Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb visited the dargahs of esteemed saints and
contributed sizable sums for their maintenance, especially those of Gesu Daraz
in Gulbarga, Mu c in al-Din in Ajmer and Khwaja Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki in
Delhi. But unlike the earlier Mughal rulers, his attitude toward building at these
shrines is ambiguous. At one point he comments that the erection of mausolea
over graves is not in accordance with orthodox Islamic practice. 15 In fact, he
provided no buildings at the Ajmer or Gulbarga shrines. Yet he did order
renovation of Bakhtiyar Kaki’s tomb in Delhi and had a drawing made of the
shrine’s layout. Although the dargah dates to the thirteenth century, active
Mughal patronage of it commenced under Aurangzeb, when several princes
were buried there. 16 The colored tiles with floral sprays inlaid into the west wall
of the saint’s tomb are probably Aurangzeb’s contribution.

Toward the end of his life, Aurangzeb noted that visiting graves was not
acceptable in orthodox Islam. Nevertheless, the location of his own tomb
indicates that he personally never lost esteem for saints. For just before he died,
Aurangzeb ordered the construction of his tomb at the dargah of Shaikh
Burhan al-Din in Khuldabad, meaning the Abode of Eternity, not far from
Aurangabad and the Ellora caves. This area long had been the burial site of
esteemed saints as well as some Deccani and Mughal princes. The emperor’s
open-air grave, in accordance with his final wishes, was marked by a simple
stone cenotaph, although in the early twentieth century it was faced with white
marble. The top was filled with earth so plants might grow. Its original
simplicity followed a form used earlier at Jahan Ara’s tomb (Plate 167), one that
in the eighteenth century became common.

15 Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat , pp. 38-39, 4 7.

16 Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri, p. 125. Y. D. Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood (2nd ed.,
New Delhi, 1974), p. 63, states that the tiles were provided by Aurangzeb.

260

aurangzeb’s patronage

Plate 164. c Idgah, Mathura

Throughout his life Aurangzeb was concerned about the maintenance of
royal tombs, foreshadowing the interest in his own. He protested bitterly when
land containing the grave of one of his deceased daughters was purchased. 17
When a prince, Aurangzeb had written Shah Jahan regarding repairs that he felt
were mandatory for the preservation of his mother’s tomb, the Taj Mahal (Plate
1 31). After Shah Jahan’s death, Aurangzeb ordered the governor of every
province to send 2,000 rupees for the maintenance of this tomb. 18

Fortification , palace and garden architecture

Despite his primary concern with religious building, Aurangzeb maintained a
lifelong interest in secular structures. For example, he built and repaired serais,
wells and bridges - structures all necessary for the welfare of the state. In
addition, the construction of fortifications was well in keeping with this
emperor’s interests in territorial expansion. During the first few years of his
reign, Aurangzeb constructed outer defensive gates before Shah Jahan’s Lahore
and Delhi gates of the Shahjahanabad palace. Reputedly the imprisoned Shah
Jahan, upon hearing of this, wrote, “You have made the fort a bride and set a

17 Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat , p. 43. 18 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 203.

AURANGZEB

veil before her face.” 19 These monumental gates, composed of red sandstone,
obscured Shah Jahan’s ceremonial entrances into the fort and their original
direct alignment with the city’s main bazaar, its canal and Jahan Ara’s gardens.
They did, however, lend military strength to the fort. Aurangzeb also ordered
an outer defensive wall ( sher bajji) erected around the Agra fort. It was built in
three years under the supervision of I c tibar Khan. Later in his reign, Aurangzeb
ordered forts constructed during the campaign against the Afghans, and in 1705
another was built in conjunction with the campaign against the Marathas. In
various Deccani cities additional fortification was provided. In 1683 Ihtamam
Khan was charged with building walls around the city of Aurangabad. These
masonry walls today have virtually disappeared, but several of the original
thirteen gates still exist. The Delhi gate (Plate 165), marked by a wide entrance
arch and engaged polygonal turrets surmounted by a domed chattri on each
side, follows an older regional form, not one characteristic of contemporary
Mughal structures elsewhere in India.

Aurangzeb’s concerns extended beyond the military security of a locale. In
Delhi he banned any construction that did not have his prior approval and went
so far as to dismantle a structure erected by a lady of the court without his
permission. 20 Even after his permanent departure from Shahjahanabad,
Aurangzeb ordered c Aqil Khan, governor ( subadar ) of Delhi, to maintain its
gardens, palaces and serais. The emperor ordered reports on their condition
and had drawings of them prepared. 21 The rooms of the palace were cleaned,
locked and the carpets stored to prevent damage. 22

Once Aurangzeb had moved permanently to the Deccan he did not reside in
older palaces of the Deccani sultans. He had new ones built, including the
palace at Aurangabad. In addition, Aurangzeb repaired the residences of
others. For example, in 1685 he ordered renovations to an earlier palace near
Ahmadnagar. Aurangzeb, like his predecessors, clearly felt that palatial
residences were a necessity for a king. He objected, however, to the misuse of
palatial settings, stating that dissipated rulers spent inordinate time in the
pleasures of a palace. 23

Like his predecessors, Aurangzeb loved garden settings and rewarded
gardeners for good work. 24 He built only a few, mostly when still a prince,
including a garden and tank in the vicinity of Bijapur as well as one in Ujjain. 25
Aurangzeb, again like his predecessors, was taken by the beauty of Kashmir

19 List, 1: 9.

20 S. M. A. Husain’s introduction to Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat , p. 14.

21 Aurangzeb, Ruka c at-i- c Alamgiri , pp. 1 16-17.

22 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 233.

23 Saqi Must c ad Khan, pp. 1 57-58, and Khafi Khan, History , p. 141.

24 Saqi Must c ad Khan, p. 134.

25 Saqi Must c ad Khan, pp. 206-07, an ^ Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri, p. 29.

262

PRINCELY PATRONAGE

Plate 165. Delhi gate, Aurangabad

and its gardens, although he decreed in the sixth year of his reign that no king
should visit there unless on military or administrative business; the pursuit of
pleasure, he believed, was inadequate reason for going to Kashmir. 26

PRINCELY PATRONAGE

During Aurangzeb’s reign, most members of the imperial family were more
devoted to the patronage of literature and religion than to the construction of
grand edifices and gardens. However, several notable tombs and mosques were
constructed by the royal family, including the Bibi-ka Maqbara, or Tomb of
the Queen, built in Aurangabad (Plate 166). This monumental white tomb,
completed in 1660-61, was built for Rabi c a Daurani, Aurangzeb’s wife, also
known as Dilrus Banu, who died in 1657. At Aurangzeb’s command, their
eldest son, Prince A c zam Shah, built this tomb closely modeled on the Taj
Mahal (Plate 13 1).

Persian inscriptions on the tomb’s south entrance gate give the names of the
architect, c Ata Allah, the supervisor, Aqa Abu al-Qasim Beg, and the engineer,
Haspat Rai. Other contemporary documents indicate that the supervisor and
others in responsible positions were at the site continuously during this time,

26 Khafi Khan, History , p. 179.

AURANGZEB

Plate 1 66 . Tomb of Rabi c a Daurani, also known as the Bibi-ka Maqbara, Aurangabad

thus resulting in the tomb’s completion within four years of the queen’s death.
The architect, c Ata Allah, was the son of Ustad Ahmad, architect of the Taj
Mahal and Shahjahanabad fort. This does much to explain the tomb’s close
resemblance to the Taj.

Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb is situated in the middle of a char bagh , typical of
most imperial Mughal tombs (Plate 19). Approximately half the size of the Taj
Mahal, this tomb is different in notable ways. At Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb there
is an emphasis on the building’s verticality, not the harmonious balance of
proportions as at the Taj. This rapid shift in spatial arrangement occurring
shortly after Aurangzeb’s accession triggers innovative directions for
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century architecture.

While marble is the predominant building material for the Taj, burnished
stucco covers the Bibi-ka Maqbara and its adjacent mosques. Only on the
tomb’s interior is marble used. Unlike the Taj, Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb has no
inlaid work. Instead, the tomb’s ornate surfaces are carved with panels of
intricate floral sprays. Although the mausoleum itself is not painted, rich poly-
chrome decorates the elaborate net vaulting of the entrance gates.

The carving, polychrome and the emphasis on the tomb’s verticality are
characteristic of late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century tombs and elaborate
dwellings. By contrast the two mosques inside the tomb’s compound bear

264

PRINCELY PATRONAGE

Plate 167. Tomb of Jahan Ara, Shahjahanabad, Delhi

little elaborate ornament, recalling more the private mosques of Shah Jahan
(Plates 105, 106, 1 14 and 1 1 5) than Aurangzeb’s contemporary Mod mosque in
the Shahjahanabad fort (Plates 160 and 1 6 1 ).

Rabi c a DauranPs tomb is the last imperial Mughal tomb built in the tradition
of monumental covered mausolea set in a char hagh. Raushan Ara’s structural
tomb had been built in Shah Jahan’s time with an opening in the roof exposing
the cenotaph to the elements. The taste for simple graves uncovered by any
superstructure, hence in accordance with orthodox practice, increases through-
out the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Aurangzeb’s own grave was
of this type. So was the one built by Shah Jahan’s devoted daughter, Jahan Ara,
for many years the most powerful woman in the empire. She is buried in Delhi
at Nizam al-Din’s dargah , not far from the tomb of the esteemed saint.
Enclosed by beautifully carved marble screens, her white marble cenotaph
serves as a planter (Plate 167). It is marked by a marble slab carved with a verse
demonstrating her humble piety and devotion to the Chishti saints. 27 Forgiven

27 Hasan, Nizamu-d Din, p. 16.

AURANGZEB

Plate 1 68. Mosque of Zinat al-Nisa, Delhi

by Aurangzeb after Shah Jahan’s death, Jahan Ara regained her position as
a significant cultural force. She lived the rest of her life in Delhi writing a
biography of Mu c in al-Din Chishti and died in 1681.

Simple graves and cenotaphs now mark the burial sites of imperial princesses.
Among them was Zeb al-Nisa, who died in 1702, the oldest of Aurangzeb’s
children and a beneficent patron of poetry and literature, and Zinat al-Nisa,
Aurangzeb’s second daughter, who was noted for her piety and charity. Each
was buried in separate grave sites near or in Shahjahanabad. Their tombs, each
destroyed, had simple graves marked by a cenotaph and headstone carved with
Quranic verses similar to those at Jahan Ara’s grave.

In conjunction with her simple tomb, dated 1711-12, Zinat al-Nisa con-
structed a large mosque in Shahjahanabad (Plate 168). Located due south of the
palace and overlooking the Jumna river, it was built on a high plinth. The
location and size of this mosque, along with those constructed by earlier ladies
of the court (cf. Plate 1 16), underscore the status of the patron. The mosque’s
red and white striped domes and high central pishtaq, among other features, are
modeled closely on Shah Jahan’s Jami c mosque (Plate 124). Typical of
Aurangzeb’s architecture, however, are the tightly constricted necks of the
domes and cusped entrance arches supported on slender piers, emphasizing the
structure’s height.

266

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 169. Tomb of Shaikh c Ala al-Din, known today as the Sola Khamba, Ajmer

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Western India

Ajmer and vicinity

Aurangzeb paid homage on several occasions at the dargah of Mu c in al-Din
Chishti and continued his predecessors’ practice of generously distributing
alms there, but added no structures to the shrine. One, however, was built there
during his reign. Shaikh c Ala al-Din, who until his death was in charge of the
shrine, built his tomb in 1659-60 just outside the shrine on its west. Known as
the Sola Khamba (Plate 169), this rectangular marble building derives its name
from the sixteen columns that support cusped entrance arches. Its three
mihrabs are closely modeled on the central one of Shah Jahan’s marble mosque
immediately to the tomb’s east (Plate 106), again underscoring the impact of
this mosque on the subsequent architecture of Ajmer. The Sola Khamba, how-
ever, introduces cusping, not seen on Shah Jahan’s public architecture in Ajmer.
This and the increasing number of columns supporting these cusped arches
reveal an elaboration of form common to Aurangzeb-period works.

Another structure bearing the impact of Shah Jahan’s Jamb mosque is one
provided in 1692-93 close to the dargah by Sayyid Muhammad, an attendant
( mutawali ) at the saint’s tomb. Unlike the Shah Jahan-period mosques on the

267

AURANGZEB

Plate 170. Mosque of Sayyid Muhammad, Ajmer

same street, this small single-aisled mosque (Plate 170) is not on ground level,
but located above the shops, following contemporary practice in Delhi,
suggesting the scarcity of open land. It bears several inscriptions, including a
lengthy Persian one inlaid with black stones into a white marble ground. This
elegant inscription, designed by Naji, a well-known poet and calligrapher of
Aurangzeb’s time, is similar in appearance, location and design to the one on
Shah Jahan’s mosque at the shrine (Plate 105). The mosque itself is a simple yet
elegant structure whose facade consists of three cusped arches supported on
polygonal columns, a form typical of Aurangzeb-period architecture in Ajmer.

Ranking in quality with imperial works is an exquisite white marble tomb
believed to be that of the wife of c Abd Allah Khan (Plate 1 7 1 ). He was the father
of the famous Sayyid brothers, who after Aurangzeb’s reign were known as the
king-makers. Her tomb is modeled closely on those built for imperial
princesses, for example, the tomb of Jahan Ara (Plate 167). Like that tomb its
cenotaph, surmounted by finely carved screens, is left open to the air. Today it
bears no inscription, but a plaque dated 1702-03, now embedded in the wall of
c Abd Allah’s nearby tomb, refers to the death of a lady and probably once
belonged to the white marble tomb. Other inscriptions indicate that a mosque
and garden were built in conjunction with the tomb between 1702 and 1704.
Later in 1710 c Abd Allah’s tomb in the same compound was built by his sons.

268

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 1 71. c Abd Allah Khan’s wife’s tomb, Ajmer

Even structures outside of Ajmer reveal an awareness of current Mughal
idiom. Among these is the Jami c mosque in Merta, about 100 km north of
Ajmer (Plate 172). It was built by Hajji Muhammad Sultan, the son of a local
religious official, in 166 5. 28 The mosque, constructed in local red stone, is
situated on a high plinth above shops. Very tall minarets, visible from a con-
siderable distance, advertise its presence as do its three bulbous domes. The
central one has a tightly constricted neck and is faced with alternating red and
white stripes like those on Shah Jahan’s Jami c mosque in Shahjahanabad built
about a decade earlier (Plate 124). The overall effect is an emphasis on verti-
cality and a clear sense of spatial tension such as we see a few years earlier at the
Bibi-ka Maqbara at Aurangabad and the Jami c mosque in Mathura, both
products of 1660-61 (Plates 166 and 177).

Abmadabad

Aurangzeb, who was born in Ahmadabad, ordered repairs to both Mughal and
pre-Mughal buildings there, revealing his interest in the maintenance of older
structures, especially mosques. New buildings were constructed on behalf of
the Mughal administration by Muhammad A c zam Shah, a governor of Gujarat.

28 The mosque bears two inscriptions, but the earlier one seems to refer to a mosque that no longer
remains.

AURANGZEB

Plate 172. Jami c mosque, Merta

He erected palace buildings on the Sabarmati river, but no trace of them
remains. Also at this time Mughal governors, amirs and religious officials
erected religious structures to enhance Mughal presence and at the same time
to immortalize their own names. Among these are the mosque and tomb of
Sardar Khan, a noble who had gained Aurangzeb's favor during the war of
succession, when he prevented Dara Shukoh from entering Ahmadabad. Sardar
Khan's tomb (Plate 173) and its adjacent mosque bear features typical of con-
temporary Mughal architecture, for example, bulbous domes with constricted
necks (Plate 168). The mosque's plan, a single-aisled three-bayed form, is
common in contemporary Mughal architecture elsewhere but not typical of
architecture in Gujarat. The mosque and tomb, however, also display many
local features, especially the tomb’s screened walls that are modeled on those of
the more famous tomb of Shaikh Ahmad Khattu at nearby Sarkhej. The tomb,
based largely on local tradition, is domed, unlike the characteristic royal tombs
of Aurangzeb's time. Other notable monuments of this time, for example the
Hadayat Bakhsh madrasa (1690-1700) and the mosque, madrasa and tomb of
Nawab Shuja c at Khan (1695), also combine local idiom with standard Mughal
vocabulary. Thus in Gujarat throughout the Mughal period most buildings,

270

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 173. Sardar Khan’s tomb, Ahmadabad

except those built by princes and the highest-ranking amirs, appear to be
products of local designers.

North India

Lahore to Delhi

Although Aurangzeb built his largest mosque in Lahore, he rarely visited the
city. In fact, the Frenchman Bernier reported that Lahore was rapidly decay-
ing, probably because the city lacked an imperial presence and had been
ravaged by floods. All the same, high-ranking officials and their families con-
tinued to reside in Lahore and to embellish the former Mughal capital. The
most notable structure at this time is the tomb of Dai Anga, dated 1671-72. She
was a wet-nurse who served in the imperial court and hence a woman of
considerable stature. In keeping with local techniques, her brick tomb was
originally covered with tiles, but only a few now remain. The tomb is modeled
on those seen widely across the subcontinent. The square single-storied struc-
ture surmounted by a single dome and chattris at each corner is closely related
to tombs such as that of Shah Ni c mat Allah at Gaur built during Shah Jahan’s

271

AURANGZEB

reign. The tomb's interior arrangement, with a central chamber surrounded by
eight smaller ones, is also found throughout the subcontinent at this time. The
interior dome (Plate 174), like that of Wazir Khan's nearby mosque, is mag-
nificently polychromed. The tomb is thus a regional version of a general type
popular throughout Mughal India.

During the time that Aurangzeb resided in Shahjahanabad, revenue from
Kashmir soared, and new serais were needed to support the increased trade. 29
Among these a serai on the road between Lahore and Delhi in Ludhiana
District was built in 1669-70 by Lashkar Khan, a general in the military. This
serai, known as Serai Lashkar Khan, is a square enclosure entered through
massive gates similar to those of Serai Amanat Khan but even larger than the
gates of that earlier one. This serai is brick constructed, but devoid of the usual
tile ornamentation. Also serving the needs of travelers on this route were deep
step-wells ( baolis ). Shortly after Aurangzeb's accession one was excavated at
Mahem in Rohtak District. It was built by Saidu, a mace-bearer in the imperial
court. Three stages of steps descend to this extremely deep well. On the second
level an arched opening overlooks the circular well beyond and serves as a
pavilion to catch cooling breezes.

In the foothills north of Delhi, Fidai Khan Koka, the supervisor of the
Badshahi mosque in Lahore, built a terraced garden at Pinjaur around a
natural spring. Although the exact date of this summer retreat is not known,
its pavilions with cusped arches supported on baluster columns, reserved in
Shah Jahan's reign solely for buildings intended for the emperor and his
immediate family, suggest that the garden was built in Aurangzeb's time. By
now such strictures had loosened (Plate 178), probably because Aurangzeb
had little desire to associate himself with symbols suggesting a semi-divine
status.

Delhi to Mathura

Delhi remained a leading center of culture and learning even after 1681, when
Aurangzeb permanently shifted the empire's administration to the Deccan. In
Delhi Jahan Ara presided as a patron of sufic learning, and the princess
Zeb al-Nisa provided generous patronage for literary figures, theologians,
calligraphers and others. c Aqil Khan, the governor of Delhi from 1680 to 1696,
was a poet and historian, instrumental in maintaining Delhi as a vital cultural
center. Delhi's small but wealthy leisure class not only patronized poets and
other cultural figures but also built gardens, markets, mosques and magnificent
mansions. Among these works was a large caravan serai known as Bakhtawar
Nagar, built in 1662 by Bakhtawar Khan outside the city walls.

29 According to Neera Darabari, Northern India, under Aurangzeb: Social and Economic Condition
(Meerut, 1982), p. 296, the revenue from Kashmir increased greatly during Aurangzeb’s reign.

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 174. Interior dome, tomb of Dai Anga, Lahore

Although Delhi suffered three major fires in 1662, it was mostly the poor,
living in crowded conditions, who were affected, while the spacious mansions
of the wealthy, modeled on the imperial residence, survived well. New
mansions were built during Aurangzeb’s reign, while those erected earlier
under Shah Jahan also continued to be used, but not necessarily by the same
family. Once a noble died his house became state property and was bestowed
upon the next inhabitant by the ruler himself. For example, after the leading
noble c Ali Mardan Khan died, Aurangzeb awarded his mansion to Jahan
Ara.

There was little architectural activity far south of the walled city. True, doors
were donated at the tomb of Amir Khusrau in the dargah of Nizam al-Din
Auliya during Aurangzeb’s reign. But most building was concentrated close to
the western part of the walled city, in proximity to its Lahore and Ajmer gates.
The mosque and tomb of Nasir Daulat, built in 1658 but no longer surviving,
were just outside the city’s now-demolished Lahore gate. Inside the city walls,
between the Lahore and Ajmer gates, the Anarwali mosque was built by a pious
lady. This mosque as well as the mosque of Khalil, just inside the Ajmer gate,
still stand although they have been considerably remodeled. The mosque of
Khalil, dated 1698-99, is a single-aisled three-domed structure situated on a
high elevated plinth with shops beneath. Small mosques such as this, built

2 73

AURANGZEB

Plate 175. Gate from southwest, madrasa of Ghazi al-Din, today Zakir Husain

College, Delhi

above shops and towering over the street below, become typical of much
mosque architecture from Aurangzeb’s period on.

Just outside the city walls other buildings were erected. The dargab of Hasan
Rasul Nama was established in 1691, some ten years after Aurangzeb had
departed from Delhi. A gateway and other additions were made in 1671 at the
Tughluq-period Qadam Sharif shrine. This construction, clustered to the city’s
west and away from the river, was probably on newly developed land, since no
earlier Mughal structures were there.

Among these buildings the complex containing the tomb, mosque and
madrasa of Ghazi al-Din, immediately beyond the Ajmer gate, is the largest and
best preserved. Such a large edifice on this major thoroughfare underscores the
notion that this portion of the city had been undeveloped. The school, today
housing Zakir Husain College, has been one of Delhi’s leading educational
institutions since its establishment and is the oldest continuing school in the
city. The patron, Mir Shihab al-Din, came to India from Bukhara in 1674. In
1683 he received the title Ghazi al-Din Khan Bahadur for his successful
campaigns in the Deccan. Sometime after this date and before his death in 1709
he built his complex in Delhi.

The school is a quadrangular building apparently influenced by traditional
Iranian four -aiwan structures, reflecting the patron’s Bukhara origins. The

2 74

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 176. Mosque in madrasa of Ghazi al-Din, Delhi

main gate is a massive red sandstone portal, leading to a courtyard on three
sides of which are double-storied galleries whose vaulted chambers serve as
living quarters. On the east are projecting oriel windows surmounted by
curved sloping roofs (Plate 175) inspired by the bangala style superstructures
of Shah Jahan’s palace architecture (Plate 113). The mosque (Plate 176), on the
west, is not an extension of the wall, as is usual in Iranian madrasa s, but is free-
standing. It resembles Zinat al-Nisa’s mosque on the river bank built about the
same time (Plate 168). The emphasis on verticality is apparent here as well, and
devices similar to those at Zinat al-Nisa’s mosque are used to achieve this effect.
Its three bulbous domes, originally faced with strips of red and black stone, sit
on very high constricted necks.

Ghazi al-Din’s simple grave, adjacent to the mosque, is enclosed by marble
screened walls but has no superstructure to protect it from the elements. This
is similar to the type established for the royal family during this period.

The royal court rarely was in Agra, for until 1666 its fort served as
Shah Jahan’s prison. Thus there was little notable construction here during
Aurangzeb’s reign. But in nearby Mathura a Jami c mosque (Plate 177) of some

275

AURANGZEB

Plate 177. Jami c mosque, Mathura

significance was constructed in 1660-61 by c Abd al-Nabi Khan, th cfaujdar of
the city who later was killed during Jat uprisings. It was in part his death that
prompted Aurangzeb to demolish the huge Hindu temple there and to erect in
its place the c Idgah discussed earlier (Plate 164).

The Jami c mosque, the earliest notable non-imperial mosque of Aurangzeb’s
reign, is situated on a high plinth in the center of the city. It echoes the verti-
cality and spatial arrangements seen in the contemporary Bibi-ka Maqbara,
built by one of Aurangzeb’s sons. The mosque’s high plinth, tile-covered gate-
way and towering minarets appear to diminish the small prayer chamber, thus
emphasizing the structure’s vertical nature in conformity with the imperial
style of the time. The courtyard’s rectangular pavilions surmounted by bangala
roofs (Plate 178) also adhere to forms seen in imperial architecture of the
period. During Shah Jahan’s reign such pavilions had been associated with
imperial presence, but very early in Aurangzeb’s reign they lost this meaning
and are often found on structures built by non-imperial patrons. The rapid
adoption of motifs formerly restricted to imperial use appears to be related to
Aurangzeb’s relative disinterest in forms that originally had been associated

276

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 178. Pavilion on courtyard, Jami c mosque, Mathura

solely with royalty. It thus appears that there was little centralized direction
for artists and patrons, allowing them greater freedom in the use of forms
previously charged with exclusive meaning.

The bangala roof is also seen early in Aurangzeb’s reign on the entrance
portal of another sub-imperial mosque. This impressive stone Jami c mosque
(Plate 179) was provided in 1664-65 by Mu c tamad Khan, commander
(qal c adar) of the Gwalior fort. Located at the fort’s base, the stone-faced
mosque recalls the plan and elevation of the slightly earlier Jami c mosque at
Mathura (Plate 177), but not its ornamentation. Although mentioned in no
contemporary text, the inscription over the prayer chamber indicates that
Mu c tamad Khan destroyed a temple associated with the Hindu sage for whom
Gwalior was named and in its place constructed the mosque. Inscriptions of
this nature during the Mughal period are not common but a few similar ones
can be cited: there is one on the Patthar-ki Masjid in Patna. In both cases,
however, the destruction stems from no recorded imperial order.

Benares

Tradition still perpetuated in Benares blames Aurangzeb for destroying many
of that city’s temples, even though imperial documents indicate that he long
had been concerned with maintaining harmony between the Hindu and

2 77

AURANGZEB

Plate 179. Jami c mosque, Gwalior

Muslim communities there. In fact, there is evidence only for his demolition
in 1669 of the Vishvanath temple, built almost certainly by Raja Man Singh
during Akbar’s reign. Aurangzeb’s demolition of the temple was motivated by
specific events, not bigotry. One was the rebellion of zamindars in Benares,
some of whom may have assisted Maratha Shivaji in his escape from Mughal
authorities. It widely was believed that his escape initially had been facilitated
in Agra a few years earlier by Jai Singh, Raja Man Singh’s great-grandson, thus
explaining the destruction of this particular temple. Another was reaction to
recent reports of obstructive Brahmins interfering with Islamic teaching. The
demolition of the Vishvanath temple, then, was intended as a warning to anti-
Mughal factions, in this case troublesome zamindars and Hindu religious
leaders who wielded great influence in this city. Moreover, the temple had been
built by a Mughal amir, some of whose successors recently had abetted the
emperor’s most persistent enemy.

The ruined temple then was used as the qibla wall of the large mosque
constructed in its place, underscoring Aurangzeb’s displeasure with Benares’
politically and religiously active Hindu elite. Today this mosque (Plate 180),
whose facade is modeled partially on the entrance into the Taj Mahal, is known
as the Gyanvapi mosque. The name of the patron is not known and its
construction is cited in no Mughal text.

Tradition holds that another mosque of Aurangzeb’s reign was constructed

278

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 180. Partial facade, Gyanvapi mosque, Benares

on the site of a destroyed temple, although no evidence supports this. Today
known as the Jami c or Aurangzeb’s mosque (Plate 181), it dominates the
famous Benares riverfront. Located at the top of the very steep steps leading to
Panchganga Ghat, the mosque was even more visible and clearly symbolized a
powerful Muslim presence in this holiest of all Hindu cities when its very tall
minarets still stood. Inscriptions of later date record repairs to the mosque, but
none reveals its original construction date or patron. Yet it is characteristic of
Aurangzeb-period architecture. The proportionately tall height of this three-
domed mosque and its now-missing minarets emphasized the structure's
verticality. Unusually refined, the stone-faced mosque is a single-aisled three-
bayed type usually associated with private, not imperial, patronage. Its brown
stone facing is delicately carved with niches and arches. The finely rendered
stucco, stone and polychrome work suggest a patron of fine taste and great wealth.

Eastern India

Bihar

The flourishing trade of Bihar and the relatively calm political climate made
conditions here ripe for building activity. For example, Da c ud Khan Quraishi,

^79

AURANGZEB

Plate 1 8 1. Jami c mosque, also known as Aurangzeb’s mosque, Benares

governor of Bihar from 1659 to 1664, provided structures himself and by exam-
ple encouraged others to do so as well. He ended the last significant source of
on-going opposition to Mughal authority in Bihar by conquering Palamau,
inhabited by Chero rajas. Inside the Cheros' seventeenth-century fort, whose
elegant gates had been built during Shah Jahan’s reign, Da c ud Khan constructed
a brick mosque in 1660. A single-aisled three-bayed structure surmounted by
three low rounded domes, this mosque lacks the sophistication of the fort itself
and other contemporary projects, possibly a result of its hasty construction.
Nevertheless, it served as a powerful indicator of Mughal presence in this
newly conquered territory.

Da c ud Khan's serai (Plate 182), in contrast to his Palamau mosque, is finely
built. He constructed it with the emperor's permission for the protection of
travelers in a robber infested area. This brick serai is in the town still called
Daudnagar (Aurangabad District). It remains today the best-preserved
example of seventeenth-century secular architecture in Bihar. The serai is
entered on the east and west sides by arched portals with chamfered sides,
recalling earlier Mughal portals at the Ajmer fort built around 1570. Details,
however, such as the stone pillars and cusped arches recalling those on the Sangi
Dalan built about a decade earlier in Rajmahal have a more contemporary air.
So do the small domed chattris atop the portal roof that probably derive from
those on the gateway into the Taj Mahal complex.

280

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 182. Entrance, Da c ud Khan’s serai, Daudnagar

A second example of secular architecture was built in Bihar Sharif for
Shaikha, a member of the Afghan Ghakkar tribe, many of whom had lived in
Bihar since the early sixteenth century. Called the Nauratan (Plate 183), it was
built in 1688-89. The main building in the Nauratan compound is a single-
storied flat-roofed square-plan structure. The interior arrangement, however,
is familiar throughout Mughal India (Plate 74). That is, a central domed
chamber is surrounded by eight ancillary vaulted rooms, a total of nine
chambers, the source of the building’s name, Nauratan, or nine jewels. Beside
this building, others in the compound include a tank with underground
chambers, a mosque and domestic quarters, some of which are still extant. The
building, today a school, provides a rare view of the predilections of the upper
class in the late seventeenth century.

Throughout Aurangzeb’s reign, buildings were constructed in Patna, the
capital of Bihar. Only one of them, however, is credited, at least by its inscrip-
tion, to Aurangzeb himself. That is the Rauza mosque dated 1667-68. It is, in
fact, the only Mughal building in all Bihar that claims imperial Mughal spon-
sorship. This simple single-aisled three-bayed mosque was built in conjunction
with the graves of two saints. It adheres closely to the form established by the
early seventeenth-century mosque of Mirza Ma c sum. In spite of the brief
inscription, the Rauza mosque’s unpretentious style and plan suggest that it

281

AURANGZEB

Plate 183. Nauratan, Bihar Sharif

was built in response to a general order encouraging the construction of
mosques, but was not actually paid for by the ruler. Aurangzeb was never in
Patna, nor did he construct mosques at sites with which he did not have a
strong personal interest.

Unlike the simple Rauza mosque, one constructed nearly twenty years later
by Khwaja c Amber, in the service of the empire’s highest-ranking noble,
Shaista Khan, features the most elaborate stucco work on any Patna structure
of this time. However, the decor of this mosque, dated 1 688-89, is considerably
more subdued than contemporary ornament elsewhere. Here only the interior
of the domes is intricately embellished (Plate 184), recalling similar designs on
the Benares Jami c mosque or the Bibi-ka Maqbara in Aurangabad built at the
beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign. This contrasts with the more characteristically
austere architecture of Mughal Bihar, generally unembellished by contrast
with contemporary architecture in the Mughal Bengal capitals of Dhaka or
Rajmahal.

Bengal

Although most of Bengal had been under Mughal rule since Jahangir’s time,
Assam, Cooch Behar and Chittagong lay outside the grasp of Mughal

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 1 84. Interior of dome, mosque of Khwaja c Amber, Patna

authority. Cooch Behar and Assam, territories to the north of Mughal Bengal,
were conquered in the early 1660s. At that time temples were destroyed and
mosques established, again for political purposes. Assam was eventually lost
again, never to be consolidated into the Mughal empire. To the southeast, how-
ever, Buzurg Umed Khan, the son of the empire's leading noble, Shaista Khan,
conquered Chittagong, on the southeast coast of Bengal. The Mughals long had
vied with local rajas and Portuguese adventurers for Chittagong. When Buzurg
Umed Khan secured it for the Mughals in 1666, it became a Mughal head-
quarters. There in 1668 he completed a Jami c mosque modeled on ones at
Dhaka, although today it has undergone considerable change.

For some twenty years, Rajmahal had been the capital of Bengal under the
governorship of Prince Shah Shuja c . When Aurangzeb assumed the throne,
Shuja c was pursued into the jungles of Assam where he died. Aurangzeb's
governor then abandoned Rajmahal, by then associated with the now-
disgraced Shuja c . As a result, nearby Gaur, too, lost much of its significance,
although one notable monument was constructed there, probably early in
Aurangzeb's reign. It is the tomb of Fateh Khan (Plate 185), a noble associated
with Shah Shuja c and his spiritual mentor Shah Ni c mat Allah. Fateh Khan's

283

AURANGZEB

Plate 185. Tomb of Fateh Khan, Gaur

rectangular tomb is surmounted by a deeply sloped bangala roof and
appears to be the first extant example in Bengal of a Mughal structure that is
entirely covered with this roof type, commonly believed to have originated
here.

The capital was moved to Dhaka, which once again became the premier city
of Bengal. Construction in Dhaka, long a major trade center, increased. It was
at this time that one of Dhaka’s most famous monuments, known today as the
Lalbagh fort, was built. Its construction is credited to Shaista Khan and Prince
c Azim al-Shan, Mughal governors of Bengal from 1678 to 1684. Within this
compound, designed as a four-part garden, they built the tomb of Bibi Pari, an
audience hall (Plate 186) and attached hammam , a tank, enclosure walls and
gates. Since the mosque within the walls is dated 1649, however, the present
compound was probably built on the foundations of an earlier site. There is
considerable empty space within the walls, and no residential quarters are
apparent.

The structures in this compound as well as their axial layout adhere to the
imperial Mughal idiom. The appearance of the audience hall closely follows
that of the Sangi Dalan in Rajmahal (Plate 155) as well as the viewing pavilion
in the Agra fort. Bibi Pari’s tomb is modeled on that of Shah Ni c mat Allah in
Gaur, which in turn is inspired by the tomb of I c timad al-Daula in Agra (Plate

284

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 1 86. Audience Hall, Lalbagh, Dhaka

71). However, the placement of Bibi Pari’s tomb adjacent to the audience hall
is quite out of place. Although it reputedly contains the remains of Shaista
Khan’s favorite daughter, Bibi Pari, that does not explain the unorthodox
location of the tomb.

Despite the fact that the compound is almost universally called the Lalbagh
fort, it more closely resembles an elaborate walled garden, for example, the
c Amm Khass Bagh in Sirhind, though the Lalbagh is not terraced. No structure
in the compound is inappropriate to a garden. As was the case with most
imperial gardens, it appears originally to have been intended for ceremonial and
administrative purposes as well as for pleasure. In the life of a prince, these
functions were not entirely discrete.

Dhaka, like the other Mughal urban centers, has several surviving mosques
belonging to Aurangzeb’s reign. Among them is the Satgumbad mosque (Plate
1 87), uninscribed but traditionally credited to Shaista Khan. Others include the
mosque of Hajji Khwaja Shahbaz built in 1678-79, the mosque of Kar Talab
Khan (the future Murshid Quli Khan) constructed between 1700 and 1704, and
the mosque of Khan Muhammad Mirza dated 1 704-05 (Plate 188). All these are
single-aisled, multi-bayed mosques surmounted by domes. Both their interior
and exterior surfaces are significantly more articulated than Bengali buildings
of Shah Jahan’s time, in fact more elaborate than mosques of eastern India in
general, which are conservatively embellished (Plates 94 and 1 5 1). Their surface

285

AURANGZEB

Plate 187. Satgumbad mosque, Dhaka

is usually a plaster veneer over a brick core, not the more impressive stone
facing used for many imperial structures.

Increased articulation of surfaces is seen, for example, on the projecting
corner turrets of the Satgumbad mosque. On Kar Talab Khan’s mosque, the
rectangular chambers surmounted with deeply sloped and curved bangala
roofs flank the north and south ends. These recall the tomb of Fateh Khan in
Gaur, built at the beginning of Aurangzeb’s reign (Plate 185). Earlier mosques
in Bengal have only two engaged columns on the east facade, while there are
four on the Hajji Khwaja Shahbaz mosque, six on the Khan Muhammad Mirza
mosque dated less than forty years later, and even more on the larger Kar Talab
Khan mosque. Other innovations of the period include cusped entrance arches
on the facade and mihrabs with cusped arches supported on engaged colonettes
with bulbous bases. More elaborate is the interior of the Hajji Khwaja Shahbaz
mosque (Plate 189). Its mihrabs have ornate cusped arches supported by
slender colonettes and cusped transverse arches that contrast to the plain ones
of Shah Jahan’s time.

Burdwan was another city in Bengal long associated with the Mughals. Here
Nur Jahan’s first husband was killed and buried. Later the capture of Burdwan
gave the rebel prince Shah Jahan all Bengal. In 1698, Khwaja Anwar-i Shahid, a

286

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

Plate 1 88. Mosque of Khan Muhammad Mirza, Dhaka

noble in the service of Prince c Azim al-Shan, then governor of Bengal, was
ambushed and killed in Burdwan. It is popularly believed that after this
incident the prince built the Burdwan Jami c mosque, dated 1699-1700, as a
gesture of thanksgiving, since apparently he was the target, not the Khwaja.
However, c Azim al-Shan’s name is not mentioned in the inscription, and the
heavy unrefined features of this mosque do not suggest princely patronage.

Although the mosque in Burdwan is not an outstanding structure, the tomb
complex of Khwaja Anwar-i Shahid is the most refined monument in all
Mughal Bengal. This complex includes a splendid gateway, tank, mosque,
madrasa and the tomb itself (Plate 190), all within a walled enclosure. Even
though tradition states that the tomb complex was built in 1712 by the future
emperor Farrukh Siyar, also in Burdwan at the time of the ambush, it may have
been the product of c Azim al-Shan’s princely patronage. The three-bayed
mosque’s highly articulated interior is replete with cusped niches. Such
ornateness is unprecedented on any seventeenth- or early eighteenth-century
Bengali mosque and is probably inspired by imperial architecture such as
Aurangzeb’s Badshahi mosque in Lahore (Plate 163). The interior of this
Burdwan mosque probably served as a basis for later eighteenth-century archi-
tecture in Murshidabad. The tomb, however, is the most creative structure in

287

AURANG2EB

Plate 189. Interior, mosque of Hajji Khwaja Shahbaz, Dhaka

the complex. Its format, unique in India, consists of a square single-domed
central chamber with rectangular-plan wings on the east and west sides
crowned by bangala roofs. The tomb's plastered facade is covered with cusped
medallions and niches as well as finely incised geometric patterns that recall the
exterior of Sultan Nisar Begum's tomb in Allahabad.

Despite Aurangzeb's reputed anti-Hindu stance and ban on temple building,
in fact terracotta temples were constructed in Bengal in unprecedented
numbers. There are nearly forty dated terracotta temples and many others as
well. A variety of types was produced. The facades of most of these temples are
profusely embellished with images of deities and genre scenes indicating the
strength of the Hindu visual tradition.

The founding of Calcutta by Job Charnock in 1690 and its subsequent
fortification, although of little significance during Aurangzeb's reign, were
ultimately to affect the future of the Mughal empire and its successor states. For
the next 150 years in Bengal, three rich building traditions - Mughal-type
mosques, Hindu temples and British secular structures - made this eastern area
the most diverse in all north India.

PATRONAGE OF THE NOBILITY

■-

Plate 190. Tomb of Khwaja Anwar-i Shahid, Burdwan

Aurangabad

Although Aurangzeb spent the last twenty years of his reign in the Deccan, and
Aurangabad served as the primary royal residence after the move south in 1681,
little survives from this time. Unlike the north, where nobles generally
followed imperial lead in providing architecture, few apparently did so in the
Deccan. The Mughal situation there was not sufficiently stable to make archi-
tectural construction a prudent investment.

Among the few structures provided by nobles at this time are two mosques
constructed in Aurangabad shortly after 1661, when Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb
was built (Plate 166). In 1661-62 the Chowk mosque was provided by Shaista
Khan, noted for his architectural patronage throughout the empire. 30 A double-
aisled structure of five bays each, the simple mosque is surmounted by a single
dome. It is modeled on the nearby Jami c mosque dated 1615-16, built before
Mughal presence here, and so shows few Mughal characteristics. Shaista Khan
probably used a locally trained architect and took little part in its construction.

Much more in the Mughal mode is the Lai mosque (Plate 19 1) provided in
1665-66 by a government official, Zain al- Abidin. The plan of the Lai mosque
is almost identical to that of the Chowk mosque built in the local idiom.

30 Maasir , n: 835.

AURANGZEB

Plate 1 9 1 . Mosque of Zain al- Abidin, known as the Lai mosque, Aurangabad

However, the cusped arches of the facade supported on bulbous baluster-
inspired columns are within the Mughal tradition. The use of these features was
probably inspired by a mosque in the compound of Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb.
Other structures in Aurangabad that appear to date to Aurangzeb’s time
include the Panchakki, a garden and reservoir complex built around a saint’s
shrine, and a small white mosque, now part of a girls’ school, with cusping and
columns similar to those on a mosque at Rabi c a Daurani’s tomb.

CONCLUSION

Aurangzeb was much less involved in architectural production than his
predecessors were, but he did sponsor important monuments, especially
religious ones. Most notable are mosques that date prior to the court’s shift to
the Deccan. Some of these, such as the Tdgah at Mathura, were built by the
ruler himself, others by his nobles to proclaim Mughal authority in the face of
opposition. On Aurangzeb’s palace mosque we see an elaboration of floral and
other patterns derived from those on Shah Jahan’s palace pavilions. But these
forms are no longer intended to suggest the semi-divine character of ruler, a
notion that little concerned Aurangzeb.

Early in Aurangzeb’s reign the harmonious balance of Shah Jahan-period

290

CONCLUSION

architecture is rejected in favor of an increased sense of spatial tension with an
emphasis on height. Stucco and other less expensive materials emulating the
marble and inlaid stone of earlier periods cover built surfaces. Immediately
after Aurangzeb’s accession, the use of forms and motifs such as the baluster
column and the bangala canopy, earlier reserved for the ruler alone, are found
on non-imperially sponsored monuments. This suggests both that there was
relatively little imperial intervention in architectural patronage and that the
vocabulary of imperial and divine symbolism established by Shah Jahan was
devalued by Aurangzeb. At the same time architectural activity by the nobility
proliferated as never before, suggesting that they were eager to fill the role
previously dominated by the emperor.

CHAPTER 7

ARCHITECTURE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR
AUTHORITY UNDER THE LATER MUGHALS

AND THEIR SUCCESSOR STATES

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Aurangzeb died in 1707, but the Mughal empire endured, at least officially, for
another 150 years. It lasted until the British exiled and imprisoned the last
Mughal ruler after the uprising in 1858. Shah c Alam Bahadur Shah succeeded
Aurangzeb in 1707. Continuous political turmoil prevented him, however,
from entering the long-standing Mughal capital, Delhi, after his coronation.
Delhi again became the imperial residence in 1712, but the empire continued
to suffer seriously from financial problems, political intrigue, inadequately
prepared rulers, and invasions. Moreover, Delhi experienced difficulties that
reflected on the entire state. In 1739 the city was sacked by the Iranian ruler
Nadir Shah and again in the 1 750s by Afghans who entered India four times. In
fact, as Delhi became increasingly vulnerable, it also became virtually all that
was left of the Mughal empire. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, two
Delhis emerged - the older Mughal city where the king still resided in Shah
Jahan’s fort, and British Delhi which increasingly encroached upon and trans-
formed the older city.

As the empire weakened, the nawabs of Murshidabad, Awadh and
Hyderabad established their own successor states, while Sikh, Jat, Maratha and
other Hindu rulers asserted their independence, carving out numerous little
kingdoms from what once had been a single empire. The architecture spon-
sored by the rulers and inhabitants of these new domains is heavily dependent
on the Mughal style established under Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, yet in each
case new formal interpretations and meaning are given to older forms. The
results are often highly creative expressions, reflecting these houses’ political
allegiance and religious affiliation.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE
Delhi: the capital, 1707-1858

The city before 1739

For the first half of the eighteenth century Delhi remained the unrivaled center
of Muslim culture in north India, although eventually many poets and artists
seeking more secure and lucrative patronage went to such stable courts as

292

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Awadh and Murshidabad. 1 While no Mughal ruler so much as entered the city
between 1679 and 1712, Delhi’s allure remained so great that an order was
issued prohibiting those in the army from going there without permission.
Literature, music, mystic thought and humanistic learning continued to
flourish, although painting and architecture had suffered from a lack of
imperial patronage well before Aurangzeb left Delhi. Between Aurangzeb’s
death and Muhammad Shah’s reign (1719-48), little of consequence was
constructed in the walled city of Shahjahanabad. In any event, no later Mughal
ruler was a prolific provider of buildings. Rather, princes, queens, nobles and,
increasingly, otherwise unknown citizens provided structures along with the
ruler. Thus the study of architecture here will not be divided into imperial and
sub-imperial categories as earlier in this book.

From the time he succeeded Aurangzeb, Shah c Alam Bahadur Shah never
entered Delhi. He did, however, commission the construction of a mosque and
his own simple screened yet roofless tomb in the dargah of Bakhtiyar Kaki, just
behind the famous thirteenth-century Qutb Minar. The continued importance
of this dargah is attested by buildings provided there by some of Bahadur
Shah’s successors and the fact that the last Mughal resided in a mansion
attached to the dargah.

Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki, a follower of the Chishti order, had been a
fourteenth-century saint. His dargah was a venerated shrine even before his
death, though never as popular as the dargah of Shaikh Nizam al-Din, also in
Delhi. Before Aurangzeb’s reign there is virtually no evidence of Mughal
patronage at Dargah Bakhtiyar Kaki, although Babur did visit the shrine. By
praying there upon his entry into Delhi in 1526, Babur may have confirmed
its sanctity for the Mughals. Commencing with Shah c Alam Bahadur Shah,
Dargah Bakhtiyar Kaki enjoyed unprecedented Mughal patronage. The reason
for this remains unclear. In general, however, Mughal patronage at shrines in
the vicinity of Delhi expanded, because Mughal authority outside Delhi was
increasingly challenged.

Both the shrine of Bakhtiyar Kaki and also the emperor benefited from the
close association that developed. On one hand the Mughal kings legitimized
their rule by this intimate contact with the spiritual heirs of Shaikh Qutb Sahib
Bakhtiyar Kaki; in turn, the shrine itself reaped economic and social benefits
from imperial patronage. Once the Mughal rulers invested there, so, too, did
high-ranking Mughal nobility and, by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
the nawabs of independent or vassal states. 2

Shah c Alam Bahadur Shah’s mosque (Plate 192), adjacent to his tomb at the

1 Much of this paragraph is drawn from Satish Chandra, “Cultural and Political Role of Delhi,
1675-1725,” in R. E. Frykenberg (ed.), Delhi Through the Ages (Delhi, 1986), pp. 205-17.

2 Matsuo Ara, Dargahs in Medieval India (Tokyo, 1977), pp. 179-80.

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 192. Shah c Alam Bahadur’s mosque, known as the Moti mosque, Delhi

shrine of Bakhtiyar Kaki, is known as the Moti mosque. Probably built several
years before Bahadur Shah’s death in 1712, the marble mosque is situated in a
walled enclosure to the west of the saint’s grave. Unlike the double-aisled Moti
mosque in the Shahjahanabad fort, this is a single-aisled structure. It is
surmounted by three bulbous domes on constricted necks. On each corner of
the east central bay is a slender engaged baluster-like column, a feature by now
used in religious architecture.

Bahadur Shah’s successor, Farrukh Siyar (r. 1713-19), further embellished
the dargah by building a screened marble enclosure around Bakhtiyar Kaki’s
grave and two marble entrance gates leading to the grave site. He also rebuilt in
white marble the dargab’s original stucco mosque situated to the east of the
saint’s tomb. The marble gates (Plate 193) are inscribed with inlaid black
marble characters, thus drawing upon forms and materials first introduced by
Shah Jahan at the Ajmer Chishti shrine (Plate 105). The one closest to the tomb,
dated 1717-18, is characterized by rounded cusped arches in whose spandrels
are large floral medallions and arabesque creepers. Beyond Farrukh Siyar’s
gates the devotee goes through a series of passages from the first entrance to the
grave. This architectural complexity helps emphasize the saint’s importance. 3

3 Ara, Dargahs , p. 176.

294

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 193. Farrukh Siyar’s gate, Dargah Bakhtiyar Kaki, Delhi

Since dargaks have inherent authority, the Mughals, as a result of their
patronage, draw upon that authority.

Farrukh Siyar’s additions radically changed the shrine’s appearance. Visually
the Chishti dargah of Bakhtiyar Kaki now more closely resembled the premier
Chishti shrine of Mu c in al-Din in Ajmer, where during Shah Jahan’s reign
many of the major structures had been built by the royal family. But the shrine
in Ajmer received no new support from the late Mughals due to unfavorable
political conditions. Instead Bakhtiyar Kaki’s shrine was revitalized by the later
Mughals in white marble and building types that evoked a glorious Mughal
past.

Festivities at the shrine also underscored Mughal affiliation with the Chishti
order. For example, Raushan al-Daula Zafar Khan, by far the most influential
amir in the court of Muhammad Shah, more powerful even than the prime
minister ( wazir ), spent vast sums, much of them embezzled, on the c Urs
ceremony at Khwaja Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki’s dargah. By providing
elaborate lighting devices along the road that led from the palace in
Shahjahanabad to the dargah some 15 km south, he created a spectacular

295

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 194. Muhammad Shah’s tomb with Jahan Ara’s tomb at the rear and Amir

Khusrau’s on the left, Delhi

visual link between the Mughals and this shrine. These celebrations, popular
with Muslims and Hindus alike, appealed to a wide section of the popu-
lation.

Muhammad Shah assumed the throne in late 1719, reigning twenty-nine
years, until his death in 1748. He was the third monarch to rule after Farrukh
Siyar; his two predecessors did not survive even a full year. Muhammad Shah
is credited with constructing a wall around Dargah Chiraq-i Delhi in 1729 and
the construction of a wooden mosque inside the Shahjahanabad palace. He also
built his own tomb (Plate 194) inside the shrine of Nizam al-Din in Delhi. This
white marble screened tomb is modeled closely on the nearby tomb of Jahan
Ara Begum (Plate 167), although this tomb-type long had become standard.
Muhammad Shah’s enclosure reveals more profuse floral ornamentation and
highly carved surfaces, for example along the screen’s base.

It is only commencing with Muhammad Shah’s reign that considerable
building activity is witnessed again within the walled city of Shahjahanabad.
Significant construction occurred both before and after the invasion of Delhi
by the Iranian Nadir Shah in 1739, suggesting that his attack had less devas-
tating long-term effects than is commonly believed. Among the structures
erected before Nadir Shah’s invasions is the Sunahri or Golden mosque built in
1721-22 by Raushan al-Daula, who provided lavish celebrations at the c Urs *

296

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 195. Partial facade, Raushan al-Daula’s mosque, also known as the Sunahri

mosque, Chandni Chowk, Delhi

ceremony of Bakhtiyar Kaki. This three-bayed single-aisled mosque is situated
next to the Mughal police station (still in use today) in Chandni Chowk, then
across from Jahan Ara’s great serai. The mosque was provided at the beginning
of Raushan al-Daula’s rise to power. The location alone, close to the main
entrance of the Shahjahanabad palace, indicates his close ties to the emperor.
An inscription over the structure’s east facade indicates that the mosque was
erected to honor Shah Bhik, his spiritual mentor, who had died two years
earlier.

Reached by a flight of narrow steps, the structure is elevated above the
ground. Its slender minarets that rise above the roof line and the gilt metal-
plated bulbous domes resting on constricted drums added a delicate air to
Shahjahanabad’s skyline. The emphasis at this time was on delicacy and refine-
ment, not just on the sense of awesome height that had been a major factor in
late seventeenth-century taste (Plates 177 and 179). The mosque’s facade (Plate
195) and interior are embellished with molded stucco arabesques and floral
motifs. Panels of elaborate floral sprays similar to those on the Badshahi
mosque form a dado along the base of the facade. The bases of the fluted
engaged pilasters flanking the central bay are elaborately covered with floral
tendrils. Thus floral sprays that were earlier reserved for Aurangzeb’s palace
mosques are now used outside the palace, yet by the highest-ranking nobility.

297

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 196. Fakhr al-Masajid, Delhi

The use of hitherto imperial motifs reflects the increasing power assumed by
the nobility - at times overshadowing that of the ruler himself.

Although Raushan al-Daula provided more buildings than any other noble
during Muhammad Shah's reign, his was not the finest in Delhi. That superb
building is the Fakhr al-Masajid, or Pride of the Mosques (Plate 196), provided
by a noblewoman. The mosque was built in 1728-29 by Kaniz-i Fatima
entitled Fakhr-i Jahan (Pride of the World), to commemorate her deceased
husband, Shuja c at Khan, a high-ranking noble under Aurangzeb. Situated on a
high plinth, not far from Delhi's Kashmir gate, it is one of the few stone
mosques built in Delhi during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This red
sandstone mosque, faced with white marble, is clearly modeled on the major
mosques of the city erected during the reigns of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb
(Plates 124 and 168). Most of those mosques, too, had been provided by the
court ladies. Fakhr-i Jahan, by erecting this mosque, continues an earlier
tradition. While the emphasis on the mosque's height due to its tall minarets is
typical of the period, the delicate inlay and carved niches of its interior recall
the uncluttered aesthetic of Shah Jahan's earlier religious architecture.

Other notable mosques of Muhammad Shah's reign built inside the city
before Nadir Shah's invasion show the continued vitality of the evolving
Mughal style, one that persisted even in the absence of strong central leader-
ship. These include the mosque and school of Nawab Sharaf al-Daula dated

298

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 197. Muhtasib’s mosque, Delhi

1722-23 and the Muhtasib’s mosque (Plate 197) provided in 1723-24 by Abu
Sa c id, the hereditary inquisitor ( muhtasib ) of Delhi. Both of these are single-
aisled three-bayed mosques entered through openings with cusped arches and
surmounted by bulbous ribbed domes. These domes recall those on the Moti
mosque at Bakhtiyar Kaki’s dargah (Plate 192) and are similar to many during
this period. Nawab Sharaf al-Daulat’s mosque is situated on a high plinth with
chambers beneath, today shops, that may have served as the school. The
mosque of Abu Sa c id rather unusually for this time is not atop a high plinth.
Unlike Sharaf al-Daula’s solid appearing edifice, it bears delicate stucco orna-
ment similar to that on Raushan al-Daula’s mosque built only two years earlier.

Not all mosques inside the city were adequately large to serve an entire
locality; rather, they were built for personal use. One such example is the
mosque of Tahawwur Khan (Plate 198), dated 1727-28, built by a major land-
holder of Delhi. The area of the city in which this simple single-aisled flat-
roofed mosque is located is named for Tahawwur Khan and was the site of his
mansion. On its facade three cusped entrances are supported by bulbous
pilaster columns. Thus a variety of mosques was erected before 1739; possibly
the lack of a strong imperial pattern accounts for this diversity in form and
ornament.

Religious structures appear to dominate the later Mughal architecture of

299

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 198. Mosque of Tahawwur Khan, Delhi

Delhi. That is because mostly sacred buildings remain, although serais, gardens
and markets continued to be built. The surviving ones are outside the city wall.
For example, an extensive bazaar known today as the Tripolia with a massive
triple-arched entrance gate at either end was built in 1728-29 north of the
walled city along the major highway leading to Lahore. This compound was
built by Nazir Mahaldar Khan, superintendent of the women’s quarter in the
palace of Muhammad Shah.

At Muhammad Shah’s request, the raja of Jaipur, Sawai Jai Singh Kachhwaha
(1699-1743), provided Delhi with an extraordinary observatory known as the
Jantar Mantar (Plate 199). This able statesman and astrologer constructed the
observatory about 1725 in an area to the south of the walled city known as
Jaisinghpura, probably the locale of his own estate there. Subsequently he built
similar observatories with comparable sophisticated structural instruments in
Jaipur, Benares, Mathura and Ujjain. Constructed of brick and plaster, the
juxtaposed circular and angular shapes of these enormous instruments produce
an effect unlike that of any other architecture of the period. Their forms as well
as their scientific sophistication remain appealing to twentieth-century
sensibilities. Muhammad Shah’s desire for such an observatory speaks highly
of his interest in promoting scientific knowledge, not simply the literary arts
for which he is well known.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 199. Jantar Mantar, Delhi

Delhi: 1739-1858

In 1739, the Iranian ruler Nadir Shah invaded Delhi. This was the city’s first
invasion in almost two centuries. From Raushan al-Daula’s Sunahri mosque,
Nadir Shah ordered the city plundered - a sack that lasted less than twelve
hours. Many were killed, regardless of religion. The markets and buildings in
the vicinity of Chandni Chowk as well as the fort suffered great damage. The
psychological jolt given to the complacent citizens of Delhi was never fully
forgotten. Poets many years later continued to lament this event as if it had
happened yesterday. The Iranian ruler remained in the city for about two
months, taking on his departure the money from the royal treasury, jewels -
including Shah Jahan’s Peacock Throne and the Koh-i Nur diamond - and
many other valuables. However, the loss of this wealth, essentially non-
circulating, ultimately had little impact on the city’s economy since trade
continued to prosper. 4

Indeed, Delhi recovered quickly, and new buildings replaced those
destroyed. The very patron who had provided the mosque from which Nadir
Shah issued his order for the destruction gave the city a second mosque.
Raushan al-Daula Zafar Khan provided it in 1744-45. 5 By now the former

4 S. Chandra, “Cultural and Political Role of Delhi,” p, 206.

5 Textual sources indicate Raushan al-Daula died in 1736; however, this mosque’s inscription in the
List, 1: 32-34, indicates he lived at least another eight years.

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 200. Raushan al-Daula’s mosque, known today as the Sunahri mosque,

Darayaganj, Delhi

influential amir had fallen from favor and was no longer active in politics. His
second mosque, like his first one (Plate 195), is known today as the Sunahri or
Golden mosque, and, like it, was also built in honor of the religious figure Shah
Bhik, who had died some years earlier. Situated south of the fort along the main
road that led to the Delhi gate, now an area known as Daryaganj, it is a single-
aisled three-bayed mosque (Plate 200). Originally it was surmounted with gilt,
copper-faced domes. However, the metal was subsequently removed and
placed on the mosque Raushan al-Daula had constructed earlier in Chandni
Chowk. Today even the domes are missing.

This mosque is more robust in appearance than the one he provided some
twenty years earlier. It also bears considerably less stucco ornament. Whether
this change in aesthetic was conscious is unclear, but the solid yet austere
appearance suggests an infusion of new stability into the city.

In 1748 Muhammad Shah was succeeded by his son, Ahmad Shah. The new
ruler’s mother, Udham Bai, also known as Qudsiya Begum, wielded consider-
able influence over Ahmad Shah, as she had done in the early stages of
Muhammad Shah’s reign when she was that ruler’s favorite consort. Now, in
fact, this shrewd queen and her confidant, Javid Khan, the prime minister, held
the true reins of power. Qudsiya Begum was an enthusiastic provider of
architecture, best known for her palace and garden complex, Qudsiya Bagh. It

302

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 201. Qudsiya Bagh mosque, Delhi

was probably commenced when Ahmad Shah assumed the throne in 1748.
Located just north of Delhi’s walled city, this garden housed a substantial
residence that overlooked the river Jumna. The mansion has since been
destroyed, but late eighteenth-century engravings of its riverside facade
indicate its splendor and size. A large two-storied edifice, the mansion had
polygonal turrets at each end. The facade was marked with projecting oriel
windows surmounted with sloped bangala - type roofs, indicating that this roof
type continued to be used on secular architecture. Today only an entrance gate
and mosque remain, both made of stucco-covered brick.

The massive gate, probably that of the entire compound, is surmounted by
unusually large kungura. Detailed ornamentation of the gate’s stucco work
contributes to an overall elaborate appearance. Beyond is the mosque (Plate
201), whose plan is similar to that of others in the later Mughal period. It is
richly adorned with molded and polychromed stucco, marked by elaborate
faceted patterns and exaggerated floral designs found at the base and apex of
arches. Engaged pilasters are flattened and highly articulated with chevron-like
designs. Such ornamentation is usually termed decadent, as if to reflect
Qudsiya Begum’s own character, generally considered low and unrefined. She
was, however, a highly cultured woman. In any event, this ornamentation is

303

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 202. Mosque of Qudsiya Begum and Javid Khan, known as the Sunahri mosque,

Delhi

simply a more exuberant expression of that developed under the earlier
Mughals.

During her son’s short reign, Qudsiya Begum provided a second mosque
(Plate 202), with Javid Khan, in 1750-51. Like the two mosques provided by
Raushan al-Daula, this one, too, is known as the Sunahri mosque after its once
metal-plated domes. Located along the main road just south of the palace, the
compound is entered by a red carved stone gate. The red stone mosque is small
and delicate, though flanked on either side by extremely tall minarets. These
and the bulbous domes emphasize the mosque’s height, giving the small build-
ing a grandiose air. It is decorated with more subdued ornament than that of
Qudsiya Begum’s private mosque on her mansion grounds.

In the year the queen mother provided the Sunahri mosque she also built
several structures at a Shia shrine known as Shahi Mardan in Delhi, about
9 km south of the walled city. These included an assembly hall, a mosque and
tank as well as a walled enclosure. Little is known about the shrine before
Qudsiya Begum’s patronage there, but it is probable that the queen mother
erected these structures to augment a Qadam Sharif, a building housing a foot-
print revered as that of c Ali, who according to the Shia sect was the rightful

304

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 203. Qudsiya Begum’s Shahi Mardan mosque, Delhi

successor of Muhammad. The current Qadam Sharif was built in 1759-60,
probably renewing an older one. Although most of Qudsiya Begum’s buildings
here have been rebuilt, her mosque (Plate 203) remains a well-preserved
example of eighteenth-century religious architecture. It closely resembles the
overall plan and elevation of her private Qudsiya Bagh mosque. Lacking is the
profuse stucco ornament, suggesting that more austere decor was considered
appropriate for public buildings such as the Sunahri mosque, built con-
currently. Qudsiya Begum’s patronage here may have been an attempt to give
this Shia shrine similar status to that enjoyed by Sunni shrines of Bakhtiyar
Kaki and Nizam al-Din.

By the mid-eighteenth century Delhi was virtually all that remained of the
once great Mughal empire. Nevertheless, that small empire and its emperor
remained the model for Muslim culture and administration throughout north
India. In Bengal and elsewhere, former provinces were transformed into
autonomous states. In the case of Awadh, however, the ties with Delhi were
broken gradually. For example, Safdar Jang, the Mughal governor of Awadh,
never regarded himself as independent, but part of the larger empire. After his
death in 1754 his body was transported a considerable distance to the imperial
capital, Delhi, which Safdar Jang always considered his home. There his son,
Nawab Shuja c al-Daula, built an enormous mausoleum (Plate 204).

305

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 204. Safdar Jang’s tomb, Delhi

Not only was Safdar Jang’s tomb built in the Mughal capital, it was, more-
over, closely modeled on Humayun’s tomb, the first imperial Mughal
mausoleum (Plates 1 8 and 19). This square plan tomb is in the center of a walled
char bagh complex. Although the tomb’s layout, plan and its exterior, faced
with pink and white stone, recall Humayun’s tomb, Safdar Jang’s tomb bears
many features characteristic of mid-eighteenth-century architecture. These
include complex stucco ornament on the interior, cusped rounded entrance
arches, central pishtaqs surmounted by a series of bulbous domes and a central
dome that rests on a tightly constricted drum. The structure presents a balance
between increased surface articulation and mass. Commonly referred to as the
last vestige of an older Mughal architectural style, this tomb exerted consider-
able influence on the mausolea of the subsequent nawabs of Awadh and their
queens, who were buried in either Faizabad or Lucknow (Plate 216). This older
imperial-type tomb appealed to the ruler of Awadh, the tomb’s patron, who
had adopted with minimal change many of the customs and regulations of the
Mughal court.

Although the Mughal empire became increasingly impotent politically,
Delhi continued to flourish even into the late eighteenth century. Much of
Delhi’s construction at this time was financed by persons employed by the East

306

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 205. Lai Bangala tomb, Delhi

India Company or by businessmen. Into the nineteenth century, the growth of
wealthy Jain, Jat and other non-Muslim communities increased. In what was
once the heartland of the Mughal empire, these non-Muslims constructed their
own buildings that reflected Delhi’s new elite. For example, almost directly in
front of the Shahjahanabad fort several Jain and Hindu temples were built, and
elsewhere in the walled city Hindu temples were erected in prolific numbers.

The Mughal emperors and their subjects continued to build, although not as
extensively as before. Some mosques were added inside the walled city, among
them one provided in 1779 by Qasim Khan, a high-ranking noble in the reign
of Shah c Alam II. But increasingly construction occurred south of the walled
city, in part because the esteemed Chishti dargabs were there. In 1755-56 the
emperor c Alamgir II himself wrote an inscription now inside the tomb of
Nizam al-Din indicating that he had made repairs and additions to the shrine.
South of the city, moreover, there was vacant land suitable for the construction
of garden complexes and tombs. Here, about 1730, Shah c Alam II buried his
mother and daughter in a walled enclosure that contains three red stone tombs
(Plate 205). Each of the single-story buildings is surmounted with a bulbous
ribbed dome standing on a constricted neck. Internally they are arranged with
eight smaller chambers surrounding a large central one, a plan common in
Mughal tombs and dwellings (Plate 74). Known as Lai Bangala or the Red
Pavilion on account of their color, they are today within the compound of the

3 07

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 206. Lai Kunwar’s mosque, Delhi

Delhi Golf Club. They are rare examples at this time of domed mausolea for
imperial family members.

In 1803, the British gained control of Delhi, and Mughal authority existed in
name alone. The Mughal emperors, however, assumed their regal responsi-
bilities as best they could, for they remained symbols of a way of life and
refined culture whose significance even the British recognized. They continued
to construct religious and palace edifices when possible. In 18 11 new stone
masonry bridges replacing older wooden drawbridges were placed before the
Lahore and Delhi gates of the Shahjahanabad palace. 6 Erected under the
auspices of the Mughal ruler Akbar II, their construction was supervised by an
Englishman, Robert Macpherson. These immovable bridges served British
interests, for their presence meant that the fort could not be completely isolated
by Mughal inhabitants.

An increasing number of religious buildings was provided by citizens
identified only by name. For example, in 1837-38 Saddho, a woman who
describes herself as a humble milkmaid, erected religious structures within the
old city that no longer remain. Still standing, however, is a red sandstone

6 List 1 : 9 .

308

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 207. Mosque of Hamid c Ali Khan, Delhi

mosque (Plate 206) built in 1822-23 by Mubarak Begum, known as Lai
Kunwar, the consort of an Englishman residing in Delhi. This small single-
aisled three-bayed mosque is probably the best surviving example of early
nineteenth-century Mughal architecture in Delhi today. Its facade is marked by
rounded cusped arches, above which is a tri-lobed arch whose central bay
recalls the baldachin covering on Shah Jahan’s throne in his nearby Public
Audience Hall (Plate 119). The interior transverse arches are tri-lobed, the
shape of decorative arches on the mosque’s exterior. Tri-lobed arches also
appear on the mihrab. The mosque’s interior is finely but chastely carved with
shallow recessed arches and cusped niches. This small but well-balanced
structure suggests a waning taste for highly ornate surfaces in Delhi, while in
contemporary Lucknow and Murshidabad, Mughal successor states, the desire
for ornate surfaces was at a peak.

The last significant Mughal building erected within the old walled city is the
mosque of Hamid c Ali Khan (Plate 20 7), the prime minister of Bahadur Shah II
(1837-58), the last Mughal emperor. Hamid c Ali built it in 1841-42 not far from
the Kashmir gate. Its inscription was written by Ghalib, the most famous poet
of the time. This large mosque, situated on a raised platform, reveals a sense of
spatial tension. Here the emphasis is on the horizontal, while spatial tension in
the later seventeenth century had a vertical emphasis. Yet the sense of visual

3°9

THE LATER MUGHALS

imbalance is similar. The facade bears three large cusped entrance arches. The
central bay, marked with a large arch whose central lobe forms a curved
cornice, recalls Shah Jahan’s throne in the nearby fort. Its flanking side-wings
are surmounted with a parapet of miniature domes based on earlier Mughal
entrance gates, in particular the entrance into the Taj Mahal. The mosque’s
interior (Plate 208) features cusped arches supported on baluster-type columns
derived from those first used in Shah Jahan’s architecture.

This evocation of forms from the past was intentional, for Hamid c Ali chose
not to include any of the increasingly apparent westernized features on his
mosque; instead he looked back to motifs manifest most clearly during the
height of Mughal power. In this same manner, Bahadur Shah only a decade
later commissioned the poet Ghalib, the very poet who wrote the verse
embellishing Hamid c Ali’s mosque, to write a history of the entire Mughal
house commencing with Timur. The vision of the last Mughal and those
associated with him was to the past, not to any future. Ghalib himself laments
the passing of the past, a major theme in his verse and letters, evoking Shah
Jahan’s reign as a golden age. 7 Yet, while Hamid c Ali’s mosque shows features
based on those of earlier Mughal buildings, they are here combined in a unique
manner. This innovative structure suggests that even at the very end of the
Mughal period architectural forms and decor maintained a deep debt to the
aesthetic of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb; yet at the same time these forms
continued to evolve in a highly experimental and creative manner.

The last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II, a sufi himself, constructed his
own red sandstone mansion adjacent to the dargah of Bakhtiyar Kaki. It was
known as Zafar Mahal after the king’s poetic name. It is no accident that the
residence was constructed close to the dargah . Just as tombs were built in the
compounds of these shrines so that the interred might receive the divine power
(haraka) of the saint, so the last Mughal, with little authority of his own, hoped
to derive some from the inherent authority of the dargah.

Western India

Rajasthan

For generations the Mughals had patronized the dargah of Mu c in al-Din
Chishti in Ajmer, but due to political difficulties did so no longer by the
beginning of the eighteenth century. Not much later the Mughals lost Ajmer to
Hindu authorities, who held it until 1818, when the British took control. All
the same, the importance of Ajmer’s Chishti shrines attracted support from
Hindus and Muslims alike. Moreover, Mughal authority, while in reality

Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, Ghalib, 1797-1869, ed. and tr. Ralph Russell and Khurshidul Islam
(London, 1 969), p. 73.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 208. Interior column, Hamid c Ali Khan’s mosque

impotent in Ajmer, remained symbolically important. For example, in
fulfillment of a vow made during an illness, c Ali Jah, the nawab of Karnataka,
constructed a white marble pavilion (Plate 209) at the dargah of Mu c in al-Din
in 1793. The flat-roofed rectangular pavilion is largely modeled on Shah Jahan’s
Jami c mosque in the dargah (Plate 105), including even details such as the
inscription inlaid in black marble lettering. The inscription evokes the Mughal
emperor’s name, even though he had no political authority in Ajmer, reflecting
his continuing role as a figure-head of Indian Persianate culture.

Mu c in al-Din inspired patronage even outside the dargah. A large c Idgah
(Plate 210) was constructed some distance from the shrine to honor the saint
according to the inscription embedded in its qibla wall. Only on the city out-
skirts was there adequate open space for this large structure. It was provided in
1773-74 by Nawab Mirza Chaman Beg, the governor of Malwa under the
Sindhia rajas, then the masters of Ajmer. An impressive interpretation of a
bangala-insp'ired roof forms the upper portion of this vast wall mosque’s upper
central bay. Beneath this curved form is a pavilion depicted in stucco relief that
resembles Shah Jahan’s balcony from which he presented himself to the public
(Plate 1 1 3). Subsequent variations on this pavilion type were used frequently in

3ii

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 209. c Ali Jah’s pavilion, Ajmer

the palace architecture of the Rajasthani princes, but in all cases this pavilion-
type maintained a royal or religious connotation. Its use here serves as a
reference to Mu c in al-Din, who in the c Idgah , s inscription is called “king of the
dominion.” 8

Tombs built earlier in Ajmer continued to be embellished. c Abd Allah Khan,
father of the king-maker Sayyid brothers who were so very prominent during
the first half of the eighteenth century, had built a garden, mosque and tomb
for his wife in Ajmer at the end of Aurangzeb’s reign. c Abd Allah Khan’s own
tomb (Plate 21 1) was added to this garden complex in 1710 by his son, Sayyid
Husain c Ali Khan. Five years later, in 171 5, he added a large arched entrance to
the compound. The tomb is loosely modeled in plan and elevation on the
Aurangzeb-period Sola Khamba, or tomb of Shaikh c Ala al-Din, just outside
the dargah of Mu c in al-Din Chishti (Plate 169). A dome and four corner
cbattris , however, surmount the roof of c Abd Allah Khan’s tomb, while the
roof of the earlier tomb is flat. On c Abd Allah’s tomb, the cusping of the arches
is tighter, less exaggerated, and the supporting pillars are less ornate. While
architecture under the later Mughals is generally considered a more exaggerated
version of earlier Mughal material, here is one of several instances where the
opposite pertains.

S. A. I. Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions ( 32-18^2 a.d.) (New Delhi, 1968), p. 63.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 210. c Idgah, Ajmer

Construction in the city continued as well, the most notable example being
the mosque of Mir Sa c adat c Ali, today across from the railway station. This
two-storied mosque, dated 1852-53, when Ajmer was part of the British-
governed Rajputana Agency, is built in an eighteenth-century Mughal idiom
with cusped arches and delicate stucco work. Its inscription, like that on its
more experimental counterpart in Delhi, is also composed by the famous poet
Ghalib.

While most cities grew randomly within and outside their confines, Jaipur,
founded in 1727, was completely planned. Sawai Jai Singh (1688-1743), a
remarkable statesman and head of the Kachhwaha house, built it on the plain
below Amber, this house’s older capital. The layout of his new capital was
praised widely in contemporary sources. Based on ancient Hindu texts, the
resulting walled city, with broad regular streets dividing it into quadrants in a
grid-like pattern, is far more organized than the Mughal city of Shahjahanabad.
Sawai Jai Singh’s interest in astronomy as indicated by his observatories also
had an imprint on the city’s plan.

The focal point of the city is the palace. It is designed along the lines of a
traditional Rajasthan mansion, but different from the residential part of
Mughal palaces. Chambers for residential, administrative and courtly functions
are all contained within these multi-storied walls. Even more graceful than

313

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 21 1. c Abd Allah Khan’s tomb, Ajmer

Mughal palaces, this one has a light appearance. This is achieved through the
use of numerous cusped arches on slender columns, screens containing very
delicate carving, and many pillared pavilions with curved roofs surmounting
the roofline. These features emphasize the sense of height and also create a
graceful skyline.

Much of the city and its uniformly designed buildings were constructed
under Sawai Jai Singh, but his successors continued to build there as well. In
1799 Maharaja Sawai Pratap Singh built the Hawa Mahal (Plate 212). This
residential building, constructed to take advantage of the cooling breezes, was
dedicated to the Hindu deity Krishna and his consort, Radha. Its six stories of
clustered, articulated and projecting oriel windows, all surmounted by curved
roofs, resemble a honeycomb. The building’s top floor reflects each of the
smaller roofs. This in essence utilizes traditional Indian building concepts of
reduplication of forms, yet maintains the characteristic late eighteenth-century
height, grace and lightness.

North India

Lahore to Agra

The Mughals were able to hold Lahore and most of the Punjab until the mid-
eighteenth century, when political instability made their rule there tenuous. By
1768, Sikh chiefs had replaced the Mughals until the British, in turn, superseded

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 212. Hawa Mahal, Jaipur

THE LATER MUGHALS

them in 1849. Few notable monuments were erected in the Punjab during the
later Mughal period, possibly reflecting the unstable conditions as well as the
lack of imperial intervention there. The tomb of Sharaf al-Nisa Begum, known
as the Sarvwala Maqbara, or Cypress tomb, after its dominant ornamentation,
is Lahore’s best-preserved monument from the post-Aurangzeb period. Sharaf
al-Nisa was the sister of Nawab Zakariya Khan, a governor of Lahore under
Muhammad Shah. This tomb purportedly was used during her life as a
meditation chamber. A unique structure, the building is a tapering tower
surmounted with a pyramidal vault. Cypress trees and floral motifs rendered in
glazed tile mosaic embellish the upper portion. Glazed tile is not new in
Lahore, but the stiff, rigid quality of the design is a marked departure from the
free-flowing arabesques of earlier periods.

Under the Sikhs building accelerated considerably. Many new buildings,
often faced with marble stripped from older Mughal structures, were erected
by the new government and leading Sikh citizens. The styles of these Sikh
buildings in Lahore correspond with those found elsewhere in contemporary
north India. That is, cusped arches, fluted domes, slender carved columns and
curved cornice roofs dominate. For example, the Baradari (Plate 213) in the
garden facing Lahore’s Badshahi mosque is a delicate marble edifice whose
columns and cusped arches belong to the Mughal tradition. This is a square-
plan pavilion constructed in 1818 by Ranjit Singh.

The most important Sikh monument is not in Lahore but in Amritsar. This
is the Golden temple, commenced in the late eighteenth century and completed
largely during the nineteenth century. Situated in the middle of an enormous
tank connected to land via a long causeway, the shrine is known as the
Harimandir. This two-storied structure is entirely gilt-covered, glistening in
the sun and giving the impression of extraordinary opulence. The temple’s
square plan and two-storied elevation surmounted by a small domed pavilion
and chattris appear to derive from Mughal tomb-types as well as some palaces,
for example, the one at Datia (Plate 99). However, the result is characteristic of
Sikh shrines alone. Other features, however, such as the fluted domes, curved
cornices and multiple small domes that surmount the shrine’s parapet are pan-
Indian devices of this period that transcend sectarian lines.

The Mughals lost control of Agra and its surrounding area to the Jats early
in the eighteenth century. Here the older established Muslim families suffered
more than those of Delhi as they were replaced by Jat and Maratha Hindu
elites. 9 However, many Muslim artisans still found patronage since the
products they originally produced were now demanded by the new Hindu
elite, insuring a continuity of style. Little Muslim construction was witnessed

C. Bayly, “Delhi and Other Cities in North India During the ‘Twilight’,” in R. E. Frykenberg (ed.),
Delhi Through the Ages (Delhi, 1986), pp. 232-33.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 213. Baradari, Lahore fort

in this area during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but temples, palaces
and gardens constructed under Hindu patrons now embellished the Agra
region. This area flourished under these new rulers while they constructed their
headquarters at Dig, Bharatpur and other localities. The area’s association with
the birthplace and childhood of Krishna further stimulated its vigorous
revitalization. For example, members of the Jaipur royal family are credited
with providing a number of temples in Brindavan, while the subsequent Jat
rulers of the area also maintained these structures and added their own as well.
Nearby at Govardhan multi-storied cenotaphs embellished with cusped arches,
bangala - roofed pavilions and ribbed domes were built to memorialize the rajas
of Bharatpur.

But by far the most impressive work is the palace at Dig in Bharatpur
District (Plate 214). It was constructed as the new Jat headquarters under Badan
Singh (1722-56) and his family, most notably Suraj Mai (1756-63) and his
successors. Although built in several stages and under different patrons, the
palace and its garden setting adhere to a symmetrical formality derived from
Mughal gardens. A central square char bagh is surmounted on all four sides by
pavilions, recalling the organization of Mughal gardens. Massive tanks on the
north and south ends of the palace complex, however, recall Hindu temples
more than any Mughal palace. The palace pavilions are characterized by an air

3i7

THE LATER MUGHALS

of solidity and grace. Badan Singh’s portion of the palace, known as the Purana
Mahal, consists of a series of rectangular pavilions surmounted by deeply
sloped curved roofs topped with spiked finials, creating a highly articulated yet
elegant skyline. Another portion of the Dig palace is the Keshav Bhavan,
overlooking one of the large tanks. It is a single-storied open building with
baluster-like columns supporting cusped arches on each facade. Short and
somewhat squat, these fluted columns rise from bases out of which emerge
large lotus petals. Not simply a mirror of structures executed at the near-
contemporary city of Jaipur, the buildings of Dig appear more substantial, with
less emphasis on height. Their reflections mirrored in the nearby tanks, how-
ever, lend them an illusionistic quality. Mechanical devices to emulate rain and
thunder were incorporated into Dig’s architecture. The purpose was to evoke
the yearning of lovers, a Hindu theme stimulated by painting and poetry.

Structures at nearby Mathura, built in the nineteenth century during the
period of British supremacy there, are of a style similar to contemporary
material in Delhi and Rajasthan. Among these is a cenotaph built as a memorial
to a deceased Hindu, Parikhji, who died in 1837. In plan it is similar to the
octagonal tomb-type of the Lodi and Sur kings. The ornamentation, however,
is typical of nineteenth-century architecture here and in Delhi. Cenotaphs such
as this were originally associated only with Muslim custom. Then, around the
sixteenth century, they were erected by some of the Hindu princely families of
Rajasthan to commemorate their ancestors. This cenotaph at Mathura has been
adapted to non-royal Hindu use, blurring the distinction in architecture
reserved for one religion or another as well as that reserved for the monarch on
the one hand and his subjects on the other.

Faizabad and Lucknow: architecture under the nawabs of Awadh

The Mughal governors of Awadh became increasingly independent so that
soon after the time of Safdar Jang (d. 1754) ties with central authority remained
in name only. The governors administered Awadh from Lucknow, the Mughal
headquarters, which soon became the premier city of Awadh. However,
Faizabad, some 120 km to the northeast, was the initial residence of Safdar Jang
and his immediate successors, the nawabs as they were called, in recognition of
their original role as deputies to the Mughal emperor. During the reign of
Safdar Jang’s successor, Shuja c al-Daula (1754-75), Faizabad became such a
significant city that contemporary chronicles, probably exaggerated ones,
claim that it equaled Shahjahanabad in beauty and magnificence. Most of the
city has long since disappeared, but a mosque and the tombs constructed for
Shuja c al-Daula and his wife remain notable reminders of Faizabad’s early
splendor.

During the initial period of the nawabs’ power, buildings were modeled
closely on Mughal prototypes, for Delhi, still the center of courtly Muslim

318

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 214. Palace, Dig, Bharatpur District

culture, remained the ideal to emulate. This is evident in buildings of the
central market place ( chowk ), commenced about 1765 by Shuja c al-Daula. He
provided this chowk with an elaborate triple-arched entrance. In the market,
Hasan Reza Khan, later to be one of the chief ministers of Awadh, built a
mosque, known today as the Chowk mosque (Plate 215). The three bulbous
domes and two minarets of this single-aisled three-bayed mosque, situated on
a high plinth, dominate the skyline. This emphasis on the building’s height
recalls Mughal buildings of Aurangzeb’s reign (Plate 179). Other aspects,
however, relate to more contemporary architecture of Delhi, for example the
stucco work above the cusped arches and the ornate treatment of the mosque’s
parapet (Plates 201 and 204).

Tombs in Faizabad also were inspired by Mughal models; particularly the
tomb for Shuja c al-Daula, built about 1775, and one for his wife, Bahu Begum
(Plate 216), constructed about forty years later, after her death in 1816, show
Mughal features. Both of these tombs, like the tomb of Safdar Jang (Plate 204),
Shuja c al-Daula’s predecessor, have bulbous domes and are set in char baghs.
The ornament on these tombs, like that on the Chowk mosque, is deeply rooted
in earlier Mughal traditions. At the same time, these tombs reveal original charac-
teristics such as multiple entrances on the facade and elaborate parapets on the
roof, significant features in the developing independent Awadhi style.

319

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 215. Hasan Reza Khan’s mosque, known today as the Chowk mosque,

Faizabad

Asaf al-Daula, Shuja c al-Daula’s son and successor, moved his residence to
Lucknow, in part to distance himself from the powerful Bahu Begum. From the
time of Asaf al-Daula onwards, that is from 1775 to the abolition of the house
of Awadh by the British in 1856, Lucknow remained the seat of the nawabs.
Although construction was considerable under the nawabs of Awadh, archi-
tecture in Lucknow can be placed generally in two broad categories. Those
structures built by the nawabs commencing about the later eighteenth century
for their own residences or as public works often reflect considerable European
influence, while religious structures are usually based on the architecture of
earlier Indo-Islamic houses.

Apart from bridges, whose parts were actually ordered from Europe and
then assembled in Lucknow, it is the palace architecture that bears the most
noticeable European characteristics. Such features as Paladian-style columns,
triangular pediments, and Adam-style fanlights were all widely used in
Lucknow’s residential architecture. Even structures such as a zenana, whose
purpose precluded numerous tall windows on the facade as favored by con-
temporary Europeans, reflect an awareness of European styles. Instead of
windows, the architects provided niches with statues or fresco paintings of

320

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 216. Bahu Begum’s tomb, Faizabad

11111 1 1

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 217. Gate, Kaiser Bagh in 1858, Lucknow

men. 10 Such ornamentation, however, was only a superficial adaptation of
European tradition, for the buildings’ interiors continued to follow traditional
plans essential to indigenous modes of living. The European features suggest
the nawabs’ superficial display of regard for the British, yet at the same time an
uneasiness with both British dominance and British artistic styles.

A series of palaces was constructed in Lucknow, from Asaf al-Daula’s
defensively viable Macchi Bhavan, built about 1774, to the Kaiser Bagh, built
about 1848 by the last king of Awadh, Wajid c Ali Shah. Today only isolated
structures that once were part of the extravagant palatial Kaiser Bagh complex
remain (Plate 217). Highly influenced by European art, the fine ornate stucco
work in the shape of fish (the nawabs’ royal emblem), and the floral motifs
standing out along exaggerated cusped arches, are characteristic of the Kaiser
Bagh buildings. While the well-fortified Macchi Bhavan was a symbol of the
nawabs’ power, the pleasure-garden nature of the last palace, the Kaiser Bagh,

Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, A Fatal Friendship: The Nawabs, the British, and the City of Lucknow (Delhi,
1985), pp. 146-47.

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 218. Rumi Darwaza, Lucknow

reflected the impotent nature of the politically moribund nawabs. 11 Thus the
increasingly extravagant nature of each subsequent palace, culminating in the
Kaiser Bagh, must be seen as reflecting a developing need to project an image
of strength. The Europeanized mansions in each palace complex perhaps
reflected an image of political power, one often more inflated than real.

The nawabs and their architects seem to have felt greater ease in constructing
religious structures, even though they were often part of the palace grounds. In
1784 Nawab Asaf al-Daula commenced an enormous Imambara, a hall used
during the Shia celebrations of Muharram and for storing movable shrines
(ta c ziya) used in these ceremonies. This complex adjoined the Macchi Bhavan
palace. It was erected to provide work and income for citizens who were
suffering from a serious famine. The nawab himself participated in the con-
struction process as an act of religious merit, thereby encouraging even the
high-born to labor. 12 The compound consisted of the huge Imambara, a large
free-standing mosque, a step-well and elaborate entrance gates. Even in these
gates the complex's vast scale is emphasized. Nowhere is this better expressed
than in the Rumi Darwaza (Plate 218), the gate serving as the west entrance to
the Imambara. This enormous gate's high rounded pishtaq is enveloped by a

n Llewellyn-Jones, A Fatal Friendship , pp. 177-78.

12 A. H. Sharar, Lucknow: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture , tr. E. S. Harcourt and F. Husain
(Boulder, 1975), p. 47.

THE LATER MUGHALS

series of projecting green glazed ceramic finials from which water once
spouted. Typical of the Awadh nawabs’ architecture, the gate was highly
creative, characterized by a sense of dynamic articulation never expressed in the
more orderly structures of the Mughals.

The Imambara was at the time of its construction a technological achieve-
ment, for it had the largest vaulted hall that ever spanned an uninterrupted
space. Yet other aspects of Asaf al-Daula’s Imambara belong to a vocabulary of
standard ornament found on mosques and madrasas throughout north India.
For example, it is adorned with magnificently rendered high stucco relief,
numerous arches edged with deep cusping and crowned by a parapet of
bulbous domes. While these features, seen on many of Lucknow’s religious
buildings, are arranged in a manner unique to Awadhi architecture, they are all
established forms used earlier on Mughal and other Islamic buildings. Thus in
the architecture of Lucknow, just as in the other well-established Muslim house
of north India, Murshidabad, long-standing Islamic forms served as the basis of
religious structures, while European sources stood behind administrative and
residential structures. European forms were meticulously avoided for religious
architecture. Rather, the models for religious buildings were structures that had
been erected by earlier Indo-Islamic houses. These models were, however,
associated not with a dynasty but with the very essence of Islam.

Benares

Mughal rulers held Benares until the mid-eighteenth century, when the city and
the region around it fell to Hindu zamindars who had been awarded the title
raja by the Mughal emperor. The new ruler’s authority, however, was less than
absolute, for the territory held by the Benares raja was under the larger
umbrella of the East India Company. Construction in Benares by Muslims
diminished during this period. Although mosques continued to be built, the
most noteworthy Islamic structure is the tomb of Lad Khan (Plate 219), dated
1768-69. It overlooks the Ganges at the site where today the Mughal Serai
bridge spans the river. The form of this square-plan tomb surmounted by a
dome and four chattris is highly conservative, adhering closely to Mughal-
period monuments. Glazed-tile decoration on the tomb’s surface produces a
striking polychrome effect. While glazed-tile embellishment is not generally
associated with Mughal and post-Mughal architecture in eastern India, it is also
used in a mosque almost precisely contemporary in date, the one built by Mir
Ashraf, dated 1773, m Patna. There, however, the tiles are on the floor.

In Benares, the most sacred of all Hindu cities, temples were erected in
prolific numbers during the late Mughal period and the years of rule by
zamindars. Most important of these was the Vishvanath temple, whose
predecessor had been razed by Aurangzeb. A small structure, with delicate
reduplicated spires that emphasize the temple’s height, it was once again

3*4

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 219. Tomb of La c l Khan, Benares

revitalized as the major site of pilgrimage in the holy city. In addition to
temples, the ghats, often leading from massive edifices facing the waterfront,
were built by Hindu rajas, some residing at a considerable distance, as a means
of establishing their own standing in this sacred city.

Eastern India

Bihar

The finest late Mughal mausolea in Bihar are modeled on the tombs of Iftikhar
Khan in Chunar and Shah Daulat in Maner, each built during Jahangir’s reign
(Plates 89-92). Among these are tombs built for Shamsher Khan (Plate 220)
and Ibrahim Husain Khan, both following the plan and elevation of the tombs
from Jahangir’s time but embellished with motifs characteristic of eighteenth-
century ornament. That is, each tomb has a domed central chamber surrounded
by an open veranda. Ibrahim Husain Khan’s tomb in Bhagalpur bears no date,
but its interior and exterior walls, ornately articulated with stucco ornament,
reflect the increased surface elaboration seen in much eighteenth-century archi-
tecture across north India. Also showing the new motifs is Shamsher Khan’s

325

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 220. Tomb of Shamsher Khan, Shamshernagar

tomb. Among these new features is the dome’s high drum with screens that
are surmounted by bangala roofs. Shamsher Khan served for some time as
governor of Patna (then known as c Azimabad) during the reign of Shah c Alam
Bahadur Shah. He, like his uncle, Da c ud Khan, founded a town in his own
name, Shamshernagar, not far from Daudnagar. There he built his own tomb, a
serai and well before his death in 1712. Only the tomb remains.

In contrast to the fine late Mughal mausolea of Bihar is the austere Jami c
mosque of Silao in Nalanda District. This single-aisled three-bayed mosque,
constructed in 1741-42 by a father and son, Sayyid Muhammad and Sayyid
Ghulam Najaf, is enclosed by high walls, not common in eastern India at this
time. On each of the exterior walls are inscriptions, again unusual. Like the
exterior, the mosque’s interior is sparsely ornamented. Cusped mihrabs and a
more complex form of pendentives than seen before in Bihar are the sole
decorative devices. The contrast with such contemporary monuments as
Ibrahim Husain Khan’s tomb in Bhagalpur indicates that in eighteenth-century
Bihar no single ornamental style prevailed, probably because there was no
single strong patron or model.

Patna remained Bihar’s leading commercial center. The city was even
enlarged under Prince c Azim al-Shan, governor of Bihar in the early eighteenth
century. He renamed the city c Azimabad, proclaiming his desire to create a

326

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 221. Mosque of Mir Ashraf, Patna

second Delhi. His efforts failed, as did his bid for the throne, but Patna still
continued to benefit from the patronage of political figures and wealthy
merchants. Among the structures they provided, the most elegant is the
mosque of Mir Ashraf (Plate 221), constructed by a Patna businessman in
1773-74. Its articulated facade with petal-like kungura , cartouches and arched
niches is characteristic of those seen throughout India in the eighteenth
century. The interior, too, is ornate, for cartouches and arch motifs embellish
the walls and dome. The floor of the prayer chamber is composed of multi-
colored tiles of the sort used on pre-Mughal Bengali structures. This unique
flooring is in keeping with the mosque's articulated surfaces, related to that of
contemporary architecture in Murshidabad, for example, Munni Begum's
Chowk mosque built in 1767 (Plate 224).

Whether ornate or austere, religious architecture in Bihar, as in Awadh and
Murshidabad, reveals virtually no European influence. There is no better
example than the Bawli Hall mosque (Plate 222) on the estate of a nineteenth-
century residence. The mosque's central facade has a tri-lobed entrance arch
and a parapet of domed kungura , recalling features of the 1841-42 mosque of
Hamid c Ali Khan, Delhi's last significant Mughal mosque (Plate 207). No
European forms are used on the Bawli Hall mosque; rather, its design reflects
contemporary work at the Mughal capital more than anything seen in the closer
centers of Awadh and Murshidabad. By contrast, the residence reveals

3 2 7

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 222. Bawli Hall mosque, Patna

considerable European influence following patterns set forth in Lucknow and
Murshidabad. Bawli Hall, the nineteenth-century residence of Nawab Luft c Ali
Khan, was once an extensive mansion little different from contemporary
British buildings in India. Now abandoned, it shows the extent that British
architecture served as the model for houses of important figures in later Mughal
successor states.

Bengal: architecture under the nawabs of Murshidabad

The architectural landscape of Bengal after Aurangzeb’s death was dominated
by three active groups, each responsible for different forms and types of
buildings. Wealthy Hindu bankers, landholders and merchants built splendid
terracotta temples in unprecedented numbers. An entire new city, Calcutta,
developed under the British in a European idiom. Concurrently the Mughals
and their successors, the nawabs of Murshidabad, embellished their own
capital, only 200 km north of Calcutta.

Under previous Mughal rulers the capital of Bengal had fluctuated between
Rajmahal and Dhaka. In 1703 Murshid Quli Khan, a high-ranking amir, shifted
the administrative center from Dhaka to Murshidabad. By 1717 he had given
himself unprecedented powers, paving the eventual break with the Mughal
court. Murshid Quli Khan never ceased to regard himself as a Mughal agent,

328

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 223. Jami c mosque, known as the Katra mosque, Murshidabad

even though he manifested signs of independence. For example, he annually
remitted revenue to the imperial court in Delhi, but named the new Mughal
capital after himself, in contrast with the earlier Mughal capitals of Bengal,
Rajmahal and Dhaka, that initially had been named Akbarnagar and Jahangir-
nagar for the ruling Mughal monarchs.

Murshid Quli Khan’s first architectural project in this new city was a Jami c
mosque (Plate 223) constructed in 1724-2 5. 13 This impressive structure,
originally surmounted by five domes, is today known as the Katra mosque. Its
single-aisled plan is typical of the Mughal idiom in Bengal. However, several
features recall the ornamentation of pre-Mughal Bengali architecture, for
example, the facade’s numerous niches. The mosque thus stands in contrast to
the more refined buildings developed in Bengal during the time of Shah Jahan
and Aurangzeb (Plates 154, 187 and 188). This break with the Mughal orna-
mental style parallels the patron’s assertion of independence.

Surrounding the mosque are domed cloistered chambers used as a madrasa.
The construction of this madrasa-cum-mosque, one of the very largest

13 For illustrations and full analysis, see Catherine B. Asher, “Inventory of Key Monuments,” in
Michell (ed.). The Islamic Heritage of Bengal , 87-104, this author’s “The Mughal and Post-Mughal
Periods,” 206-1 1, in the same volume, and her forthcoming study, “Murshidabad: Regional Revival
and Islamic Continuity,” in A. L. Dallapiccola and S. Zingel-Ave Lallemant (eds.), Islam and Indian
Regions , 1000-1750 A.D., forthcoming.

THE LATER MUGHALS

mosques in all Bengal, endows the city that hitherto held little religious
significance with a dominant sacred importance - possibly an attempt to rival
the traditional centers of piety in Bengal, Gaur and Pandua.

Less than fifty years later another Jami c mosque (Plate 224) was constructed
by Munni Begum, the de facto ruler and highly influential wife of the recently
deceased Nawab Mir Ja c far. Known as the Chowk mosque, this elegant struc-
ture was built in 1767-68 in the tradition of Mughal, not pre-Mughal, mosques.
The graduated size of the five rounded domes and two end-vaults flanked by
slender minarets yield an overall appearance of restrained majesty. The interior
and exterior are embellished with thickly applied plaster ornament. While more
elaborate than that on the earlier Burdwan tomb, stucco ornamentation on
structures erected under the Murshidabad nawabs remains considerably more
subdued than that on buildings built by the nawabs of Awadh. The Chowk
mosque, constructed at the height of Munni Begum’s influence, was the most
important religious structure in the city. Located on the ground of Murshid
Quli Khan’s former audience hall, this mosque may have been envisioned as the
focal point for a politically rejuvenated Murshidabad under Munni Begum’s
leadership. In fact, however, the real power of Munni Begum and the succeed-
ing nawabs had been eclipsed by the British.

From this time on, many mosques modeled on Munni Begum’s were built in
the city, although the embellishing motifs are less ornate. These mosques were
almost always inscribed with the name of a patron, otherwise unknown, but
never the name of the ruling nawab or British overlord. This suggests that
mosques were no longer built as a means of gaining the favor of the ruler or of
a powerful figure.

While mosques were the building type most commonly constructed in
Murshidabad, two important religious complexes, each associated with the
Shia sect, were built under private patronage in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. One is the Husainiya, located on the east bank of the
Bhagirathi, in close proximity to the palace. This structure was intended to
house portable models ( ta c ziya ) of a building associated with the martyrdom of
the Prophet’s grandson, which were carried in procession at the time of
Muharram. The Murshidabad Husainiya was commenced in 1804-05 and
enlarged in 1854-55. A highly placed court eunuch, c Amber c Ali Khan, was
responsible for the initial construction, while another, Darab c Ali Khan, was
responsible for the later enlargement. Although they built the Husainiya as
private citizens, they were nevertheless intimately linked with the court. The
construction and renovation of a Husainiya facilitated the celebration of a
religious rite observed in Shia Islam, the sect followed by the Murshidabad
nawabs. The celebration of such rites appears to have become an increasingly
important aspect of official ceremony under the Murshidabad nawabs. Since
all important secular and political ritual was controlled by the East India

330

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 224. Munni Begum’s Jami c mosque, known as the Chowk mosque,

Murshidabad

Company, it is not surprising that the nawabs might seek to foster religious
ceremony. In Awadh, too, the nawabs promoted religious ceremony, having
largely lost their authority over secular ritual.

Patronage by court eunuchs also was provided at Murshidabad’s Qadam
Sharif complex. The principal structure there is a shrine housing an impression
said to be that of the Prophet Muhammad’s foot. It was built in 1788-89 by
Itwar c Ali Khan, chief eunuch of Nawab Mir Ja c far. This impression, said to be
from Arabia, was removed from a shrine in Gaur; before that it had been
housed in nearby Pandua. These cities each had served as the capital of the
independent sultans of Bengal before Mughal times. In Gaur, the shrine
housing this impression had been the focus of the city’s sacral significance.
Erected during the Husain Shahi dynasty, its importance continued into the
Mughal period. Thus the transfer of the footprint to Murshidabad was intended
to bolster the religious status of the city, whose administrative and economic
role had been badly undermined six years earlier when government offices
were shifted to Calcutta. Just as Murshid Quli Khan, the first nawab of
Murshidabad, had attempted to transfer to Murshidabad the sacral significance
that had been associated with Gaur, so, too, in the late eighteenth century,
when the city’s importance was greatly diminished, a similar attempt was made.
The shrine’s significance increased even more after 1858 and into the early

33i

THE LATER MUGHALS

Plate 225. Murshidabad palace, Murshidabad

twentieth century, when it was revitalized in an attempt to infuse new life into
this waning city, now almost entirely eclipsed by British power centered in
Calcutta.

By the early nineteenth century, Murshidabad was the nawab’s residence,
nothing more. His powers continually reduced, he had to rely on the East India
Company for his paltry annual stipend. The nawabs’ utter dependence on the
British is reflected in the residence of the nawab (Plate 225) constructed
between 1829 and 1837. Designed by a European, Duncan McLeod, it follows
the model of Government House in Calcutta, which in turn was modeled on
Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire.

Yet, ten years after the completion of the palace, the nawab built to its north
an enormous Imambara signaling his autonomy in matters religious. The
Imambara’s sheer size - some 80 meters longer than the palace itself -
underscores the notion that the patronage of religion and religious rite were
among the few means for the nawabs to show authority independent of the
British.

According to an inscription, the patron, Nawab Feredun Jah, appointed
Sadiq c Ali Khan as supervisor for the massive structure. He designed this
Imambara, the largest in eastern India, with European features, in keeping with
the palace opposite. Thus the appearance of the Imambara, an official structure

332

PATTERNS OF PATRONAGE

Plate 226. Sadiq c Ali’s mosque, known as the Chotte Chowk-ki Masjid,

Murshidabad

part of the palace, stands in marked contrast to the city’s privately patronized
religious structures, all of which lack European motifs and forms.

That Europeanized features largely were reserved for official architecture is
suggested by another mosque (Plate 226) commenced by the same architect
who designed the great palace Imambara. This mosque completes an under-
standing of architecture in Murshidabad. Known as the Chotte Chowk-ki
Masjid, it stands in an area earlier associated with Murshid Quli Khan’s palace.
An inscription over the central entrance ascribes its initial design and construc-
tion to Sadiq c Ali. Since he died in 1850, much of it must have been completed
by then. Contrary to what might be expected from the designer of the
Imambara, this mosque is devoid of Europeanized features at a time when the
near-contemporary mosques of Calcutta reveal considerable European
influence. In fact, in plan and elevation it resembles Mughal-period structures
in Bengal dating to Shah Jahan’s time (Plate 1 54). That is, its simple cusped
arches and plain facades have more in common with earlier Mughal structures
than with the ornate facades of early nineteenth-century buildings in
Murshidabad. This is characteristic of late non-imperial mosques of
Murshidabad, those patronized by persons other than the nawab. They adhere
to forms developed in Bengal much earlier in the Mughal period. This suggests
that here, as in Awadh, the architectural styles developed under the Mughals

333

THE LATER MUGHALS

came, in Mughal splinter states, to be associated with the true architecture of
piety, of Islam, and of the old social order, a style that by now had shed
association with one or another ruling house. It was a style that stood in
contrast to that built by the rulers, increasingly dominated by Britain as much
in their architecture as in their authority.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

I PRECEDENTS FOR MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

Many of the monuments cited in this chapter as well as subsequent ones are discussed
and illustrated in the two classical sources: Percy Brown, Indian Architecture , Islamic
Period , 5th ed. rev., Bombay, 1958, and John Marshall, “The Monuments of Muslim
India,” in The Cambridge History of India , Vol. in, Cambridge, 1922. 1 While mono-
graphs and books concerning more limited areas or single sites have since been written,
these two texts remain the best sources for comprehensive treatment of architecture in
the pre-Mughal period and should be consulted for many works discussed here. John
Hoag, Islamic Architecture , New York, 1977, is useful for placing the material in a
greater Islamic context.

Other sources for material discussed here as well as in subsequent chapters include
Alexander Cunningham (ed.), Archaeological Survey of India Reports (ASIR) y 23 vols.,
Calcutta, 1871-87. In addition there are numerous reports and series issued by the
Archaeological Survey of India which will be cited in specific contexts throughout this
essay. However, of particular value for historical inscriptions on these monuments are
the Annual Report of Indian Epigraphy (ARIE) and Epigraphia Indica: Arabic and
Persian Supplement {El APS). These sources are invaluable, but for descriptive rather
than analytic material.

Sites settled prior to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate are discussed by F. A.
Khan, Banbhore, A Preliminary Report of the Recent Archaeological Excavations at
Banbhore , Karachi, 1963, and Mehrdad Shokoohy, Bhadresvar , The Oldest Islamic
Monuments in India , Leiden, 1989. Holly Edwards, “The Genesis of Islamic Architec-
ture in the Indus Valley,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts, 1990, discusses
more pre-Sultanate-period works.

In addition to Brown and Marshall, there are useful works dealing particularly with
the Delhi Sultanate through the Tughluq period. J. A. Page, A Historical Memoir on the
Qutb: Delhi , Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 22, Calcutta, 1926,
provides extensive information, but little analysis, on all phases of the Quwwat al-Islam
mosque. Anthony Welch, “Qur’an and Tomb: The Religious Epigraphs of Two Early
Sultanate Tombs in Delhi,” in Frederick M. Asher and G. S. Gai (eds.), Indian
Epigraphy: Its Bearing on the History of Art , New Delhi, 1985, thoughtfully interprets
the inscriptional program of monuments within this complex. Tokifusa Tsukinowa,
“The Influence of Seljuq Architecture on the Earliest Mosques of the Delhi Sultanate
Period in India,” Acta Asiatica , 43, 1982, is an excellent study on the links between early
Indian mosques and Iranian building types. Tughluq architecture and patronage is ably
discussed by Agha Mahdi Husain, Tughluq Dynasty , New Delhi, 1976. Anthony
Welch and Howard Crane, “The Tughluqs: Master Builders of the Delhi Sultanate,”

Citations are given in full at the first mention; thereafter usually only the author’s last name and a
shortened title are cited.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

Muqarnas , i, 1983, have published an insightful typological survey of imperial
Tughluq monuments. Although in Japanese, extensive documentation for twelfth-
through mid-sixteenth-century Delhi monuments is in Tatsura Yamamoto, Matsuo
Ara and Tokifusa Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate
Period , 3 vols., Tokyo, 1967-70.

The architecture produced under the successor states of the Tughluqs is well docu-
mented, although recent interpretative scholarship is often lacking. The classical work
for Jaunpur remains A. Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur , Archaeological
Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. xi, Calcutta, 1889. The architecture of
pre-Mughal Bengal has been examined by several modern scholars. The most compre-
hensive text is A. H. Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal , Dacca, 1961, while articles
by various scholars in George Michell (ed.), The Islamic Heritage of Bengal , Paris, 1984,
reflect current scholarship. Extensive photographic documentation and accompanying
essays for Islamic monuments in eastern India, including Bengal, is in Catherine B.
Asher, Islamic Monuments of Eastern India and Bangladesh , Leiden, 1991. For the pre-
Mughal architecture of Gujarat the most thorough sources remain James Burgess, On
the Muhammadan Architecture of Bharoch , Cambay , Dholka , Champanir, and
Mahmudabad in Gujarat , Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol.
xxiii, London, 1896, and the same author’s The Muhammadan Architecture of
Ahmadabad , 2 parts, Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vols. xxiv
and xxxm, London, 1900-05. These volumes are indispensable for detailed plates and
plans. Mandu is best covered by G. Yazdani, Mandu , the City of Joy , Oxford, 1929;
R. Nath, The Art of Chanderi , New Delhi, 1979, anticipates links with later Mughal
architecture. Recent scholarship on Muslim architecture of the Deccan includes Z. A.
Desai, “Architecture,” chapter iv (i)-(iii) in H. K. Sherwani (ed.), History of the
Medieval Deccan , 2 vols., Hyderabad, 1974, and Elizabeth Schotten Merklinger, Indian
Islamic Architecture: The Deccan, 1347-1689, Warminster, 1981. Her text most clearly
discusses the impact of Timurid forms on Deccani buildings.

In addition to the works by Marshall and Brown cited at the opening of this essay,
see Muhammad Siraju-’l-Islam, “The Lodi Phase of Indo-Islamic Architecture
(1451-1526 a.d.),” Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universitat Berlin, i960, for an annotated
catalogue of Lodi works. Matsuo Ara, “The Lodhi Rulers and the Construction of
Tomb-Buildings in Delhi,” Acta Asiatica, 43, 1982, provides thought-provoking argu-
ments on the social context for the construction of Lodi tombs. The development of a
new mosque type under the Lodis is discussed by Catherine B. Asher, “From Anomaly
to Homogeneity: The Mosque in 14th- to 16th-Century Bihar,” in G. Bhattacharya and
Debala Mitra (eds.), Studies in Art and Archaeology of Bihar and Bengal , Delhi, 1989.
Architecture under Sher Shah Sur has been a primary concern of this author; articles
relevant to the future development of Mughal architecture include “The Mausoleum of
Sher Shah Suri,” Artibus Asiae, xxxix, 3/4, 1977, “The Qal c a-i Kuhna Mosque: A Visual
Symbol of Royal Aspirations,” in Anand Krishna (ed.), Chhavi - 2, Benares, 1981, and
“Legacy and Legitimacy: Sher Shah’s Patronage of Imperial Mausolea,” in Katherine P.
Ewing (ed.), Shari c at and Ambiguity in South Asian Islam , Berkeley, 1988.

Architecture produced for non-Muslims during this period has been largely ignored.
Frederick M. Asher, “Gaya: Monuments of the Pilgrimage Town,” in Janice Leoshko
(ed.), Bodhgaya , Bombay, 1988, Adris Banerji, “Some Post-Muslim Temples of Bihar,”
Journal of the Asiatic Society, iv, 1962, and H. Bisham Pal, The Temples of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, 1969, the latter two descriptive, are among the few authors to consider temples
constructed during this period. A monograph and interpretative essay on the Gwalior

BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

palace is badly needed. To date, G. H. R. Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces , New Haven,
1987, provides the best discussion.

Few publications on Iranian architecture are written from the perspective of the
influence it had upon the Mughals. One notable and excellent exception is Lisa
Golombek, “From Tamerlane to the Taj Mahal,” in Abbas Daneshvari (ed.), Essays in
Islamic Art and Architecture in Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn , Malibu, 1981. Among
recent publications useful as background material to the study of Mughal architecture
are Bernard O'Kane, Timurid Architecture in Khurasan , Costa Mesa, 1987, and Lisa
Golombek and Donald Wilber, The Timurid Architecture of Iran and Turan ,
Princeton, 1988.

2 THE BEGINNINGS OF MUGHAL ARCHITECTURE

The most immediate source for Babur, his gardens and buildings is his own memoirs.
Zahir al-Din Muhammad Babur Badshah, Babur Nama (tr.), reprint ed., New Delhi,
1970, is meticulously indexed, making the lengthy text easily accessible. A second
invaluable source for Babur immediately after his conquest of India is Zain Khan
Khwafi, Tabaqat-i Baburi (tr.), Delhi, 1982. Zain Khan, Babur's close companion,
often provides detailed information about buildings and gardens that otherwise is
unknown. Babur’s daughter, Gulbadan Begum, Humayun Nama (tr.), London, 1902,
also provides useful information regarding Babur's patronage.

The best secondary work on Babur’s gardens prior to and after his conquest of India
is by Howard Crane, “The Patronage of Zahir al-Din Babur and the Origins of Mughal
Architecture,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute , 1, 1987. For Babur's Indian gardens, see
Elizabeth B. Moynihan, “The Lotus Garden Palace of Zahir al-Din Muhammad
Babur,” Muqarnas , 5, 1988, which deals with the garden at Dholpur, and her Paradise
as a Garden in Persian and Mughal India , London, 1980. Well-illustrated, Sylvia
Crowe and Sheila Haywood, The Gardens of Mughal India , Delhi, 1973, is popular but
useful especially for its photographs. Inscriptions associated with Babur's gardens and
wells are cited by M. Ashraf Husain, “Inscriptions of the Emperor Babur,” EIAPS y
1965. For a discussion of Rahim Dad’s garden and madrasa, see Z. A. Desai, “A Note
on the Nagari Inscription of Mughal Emperor Babur from Gwalior Fort,” in B. N.
Mukherjee et al. (eds.), Sri Dinesacandrika, Studies in Indology , Delhi, 1983. Attilio
Petruccioli, Fathpur Sikri y Citta del Sole e delle Acque, Rome, 1988, is the only source
for plans and illustrations of Babur’s baoli at the Fatehpur Sikri rock scarp.

Babur's stone cutters are mentioned in the emperor's Babur Nama , cited above.
Possible links between a stone cutter and the architect of Humayun's tomb are
suggested by W. E. Begley, “Ghiyas, Mirak Mirza,” in Macmillan Encyclopedia of
Architects , Vol. 11, New York, 1982, which is based on biographical notices by the
sixteenth-century author, Baha al-Din Hasan Nisari Bukhari, Mudhakkir-i Ahbab ,
New Delhi, 1969. Howard Crane, “The Patronage of Zahir al-Din Babur,” presents an
excellent overview of Babur's architecture with conclusions slightly different from
those drawn here. The inscriptions on Babur’s mosques are given by Husain, “Inscrip-
tions of the Emperor Babur.” Abu al-Fazl, A y in-i Akbari (tr.), 3 vols., reprint ed., Delhi
and New Delhi, 1965-78, relates Mughal perceptions of Sambhal and Ayodhya. Useful
modern lore associated with the Sambhal mosque is in Esha Basanti Joshi (ed.), Uttar
Pradesh District Gazetteers: Moradabad, Lucknow, 1968, and tradition associated with
the Ayodhya mosque as well as a photo of it is included by the same editor, Uttar
Pradesh District Gazetteers: Faizabad, Allahabad, i960.

337

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

The most thorough contemporary discussion of Humayun’s architecture is by
Muhammad Khwand Amir, Qanun-i Humayuni (tr.), Calcutta, 1940, and useful infor-
mation is also provided by Abu al-Fazl, Akbar Nama (tr.), 3 vols., reprint ed., Delhi,
1972-73. Hereafter this work is cited as Akbar Nama . A brief summary of Khwand
Amir is by Percy Brown, “Monuments of the Mughal Period,” in The Cambridge
History of India , Vol. iv, Cambridge, 1937. Golombek, “From Tamerlane to the Taj
Mahal,” cogently analyzes the implications of Khwand Amir’s descriptions of no
longer surviving buildings. Humayun’s library, the Sher Mandal, is mentioned in the
Akbar Nama. Percy Brown, Indian Architecture, Islamic Period , discusses the Sher
Mandal, as does his contribution to the original Cambridge History ; in both pub-
lications it is included under the monuments of Sher Shah Sur. Glenn D. Lowry, “The
Tomb of Nasir-ud-Din Muhammad Humayun,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University, 1983, recognizes the library as Humayun’s. Humayun’s mosque
at Kachpura is rarely discussed; the best source for a plan, the inscriptions and a descrip-
tion remains ASIR : iv. As yet there is no overview of Humayun’s patronage.

To date almost all scholarship on Mughal architecture has focused on imperially
sponsored works; non-imperial works have been sorely ignored. Zafar Hasan, A Guide
to Nizamu-d Din , Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 10, Calcutta,
1922, discusses the restoration of Amir Khusrau’s tomb during this early Mughal
period. References to other non-imperially sponsored structures are in the easily avail-
able Y. D. Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood , 2nd ed., New Delhi, 1974, which is
based on the exhaustive List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province ,
4 vols., Calcutta, 1916-22. Here descriptions of nearly all surviving monuments are
provided, but no analysis. Hereafter this work will be known as List. For monuments
outside of Delhi during this period the ASIR is invaluable; Subhash Parihar, Mughal
Monuments in Punjab and Haryana , New Delhi, 1985, provides a useful, although
not comprehensive, annotated list. Mehrdad and Natalie Shokoohy, Hisar-i Firuza ,
London, 1988, is a good source for detailed plans and photographs of early Mughal
monuments in Hisar District. Inscriptional evidence for non-imperial construction at
this time is given by Paul Horn, “Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Subah of Delhi,”
Epigraphia Indica , 11, 1884, although it appears that many of these inscriptions are no
longer in situ.

3 THE AGE OF AKBAR

For all aspects of Akbar’s reign, including his architecture, the most thorough accounts
are by Abu al-Fazl: Akbar Nama and his A ’ in-i Akbari that was written as an adminis-
trative manual as part of the Akbar Nama. An invaluable but unofficial history of
Akbar’s reign is by al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh (tr.), 3 vols., reprint ed.,
Patna, 1973, a courtier in the Mughal court whose writings on Akbar’s attitudes toward
Hinduism must be read cautiously. Important secondary sources that aid our overall
understanding of Akbar’s attitudes toward kingship and ultimately of his architectural
patronage include S. A. A. Rizvi, Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in
Akbar’s Reign , Delhi, 1975, J. F. Richards, “The Formulation of Imperial Authority
under Akbar and Jahangir,” in J. F. Richards (ed.), Kingship and Authority in South
Asia , Madison, 1978, and Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Nobility under Akbar and the
Development of his Religious Policy, 1 5 60-80,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society ,
1-2, 1968.

Many of the monuments in this chapter are discussed and illustrated in texts

THE AGE OF AKBAR

mentioned previously: Brown, Indian Architecture , Islamic Period , his essay in the
original Cambridge History and Hoag, Islamic Architecture. Another easily available
source with good plans and illustrations is Andreas Volwahsen, Living Architecture:
Islamic Indian , New York, 1970.

The List , cited earlier, is the most comprehensive source for the architecture of Delhi
through the first twenty years of Akbar’s reign. Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood ,
offers much of the same material in compact form. Glenn D. Lowry, “Delhi in the 16th
Century,” Environmental Design , 1983, provides an overview of the Akbar-period
monuments there. Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , remains the best documentation for the
Akbar-period monuments in this important shrine, including the tomb of Ataga Khan,
while Anthony Welch, “A Problem of Sultanate Architectural Calligraphy,” forth-
coming, offers new insight into the inscriptional program of Ataga Khan’s tomb. Zafar
Hasan, Mosque of Shaikh c Abdu-n Nabi , Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
India, No. 9, Calcutta, 1921, is the only monograph on this often ignored but
important building. Glenn D. Lowry, “Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function and Mean-
ing in Early Mughal Architecture,” Muqarnas , 4, 1987, provides an intriguing study of
Delhi’s most important building of this time. This article expands on the same author’s
thesis, “The Tomb of Nasir-ud-Din Muhammad Humayun.” Bukhari, Mudhakkir-i
Ahbab , is the only contemporary source that gives detailed information about the
tomb’s architect. W. E. Begley, “Mirak, Mirza Ghiyas,” Macmillan Encyclopedia of
Architects , Vol. 11, New York, 1982, suggests a connection between the architect of
Humayun’s tomb and Babur’s stone cutters. Lisa Golombek, “From Tamerlane to the
Taj Mahal,” is the best source for Timurid influences on this tomb.

Akbar’s palaces have received varied treatment. Recently contemporary passages that
mention Akbar’s palaces, largely from Persian texts including one never before trans-
lated, have been compiled by Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.), Fatehpur-
Sikri: A Sourcebook, Cambridge, 1985. Hereafter this compilation will be known as
Sourcebook. The classic source for Akbar’s palaces at Ajmer remains Har Bilas Sarda,
Ajmer: Historical and Descriptive , Ajmer, 19 11, who provides considerable infor-
mation, but little analysis. Plans and illustrations for the better known of the two Ajmer
palaces are in Hoag, Islamic Architecture , while the only published illustration of the
Badshahi Mahal is in Ebba Koch, “Influence of Mughal Architecture,” in George
Michell (ed.), Ahmadabad , Bombay, 1988. Muhammad Wali Ullah Khan, Lahore and
its Important Monuments , 2nd ed., Karachi, 1964, explains that there are very few
surviving Akbari buildings in the Lahore fort. Ebba Koch, “The Architectural Forms,”
in Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds.), Fatehpur Sikri, Bombay, 1987, is the only
recent scholar to consider the pavilion in the Allahabad fort. William G. Klingelhofer,
“The Jahangiri Mahal of the Agra Fort: Expression and Experience in Early Mughal
Architecture,” Muqarnas , 5, 1988, is the most recent study of Akbar’s surviving palace
in the Agra fort. For a discussion of the fort’s exterior walls and entrance gates as well
as superb illustrations, see Oscar Reuther, Indische Palaste und Wohnhaiiser , Berlin,
1925. Sources on the buildings in Bengal and Gujarat that influenced the development
of these palaces as well as Fatehpur Sikri are cited in the bibliographic essay for
chapter 1.

More has been written on Fatehpur Sikri than any other Mughal site. The classic
work on the site, with excellent descriptions and detailed drawings and plans, remains
Edmund W. Smith, The Mughal Architecture of Fathpur- Sikri, Archaeological Survey
of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. xvm, Parts 1-4, Allahabad, 1895-98. S. A. A. Rizvi
and John Vincent Flynn, Fathpur Sikri, Bombay, 1975, is a useful source, although the

339

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

authors’ attempts to define the purpose of each pavilion as well as their discussion of
their conscious use of Hindu forms should be read with caution. The waterworks at the
site have been documented in detail by Petruccioli, Fathpur Sikri y Citta del Sole e delle
Acque. The proceedings of a seminar on Fatehpur Sikri by Michael Brand and Glenn D.
Lowry (eds.), Fatehpur-Sikri , Bombay, 1987, reflects recent scholarship on the site; of
particular merit for the study of architecture are the articles by Ebba Koch, “The Archi-
tectural Forms”; Attilio Petruccioli, “The Geometry of Power: The City’s Planning”;
Glenn D. Lowry, “Urban Structures and Functions,” and John F. Richards, “The
Imperial Capital.” In conjunction with the seminar, the same editors produced the
Sourcebook , which deals mostly with Fatehpur Sikri. Although not concerned with
architecture, Iqtidar Alam Khan, “The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of
his Religious Policy,” provides valuable insight into Akbar’s political concerns during
the period that much of Fatehpur Sikri was under construction.

While the imperially sponsored architecture of the Mughals has been increasingly the
subject of analytic study, sub-imperial architectural patronage remains virtually
untouched by recent scholars. This present author's “Sub-Imperial Patronage: The
Architecture of Raja Man Singh,” in Barbara Stoler Miller (ed.), The Powers of Art:
Patronage in Indian Culture , New Delhi, 1992, the only case study of this sort,
evaluates the moti . es behind types of construction by one leading member of Akbar's
court. In addition to contemporary histories cited above, Mughal biographies of the
leading nobles, such as Farid Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin , 3 vols., Karachi,
1961-74, and Samsam al-Daula Shah Nawaz Khan and c Abd al-Hayy, Maasir al-Umara
(tr.), 2 vols., reprint ed., Patna, 1979, provide considerable data regarding the nobility
and their construction. The first work is available in Persian only, but Z. A. Desai is
preparing an English translation that will be available shortly. The latter work hereafter
will be known as Maasir.

Secondary material on sub-imperial work is cited in various sources, but often only
in passing or in a context where the buildings are of secondary importance. Z. A. Desai,
Published Muslim Inscriptions of Rajasthan, Jaipur, 1971, is an invaluable resource list-
ing by site all known inscriptions there. The full text of the Nagaur Jami c mosque’s
inscription is in A. Chaghtai, “Some Inscriptions from Jodhpur State, Rajputana,”
Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1949-50. For earlier material in Nagaur, see ASIR : xxm.
Ajmer and its environment has been more thoroughly studied than Nagaur, although it
is the inscriptions, rather than the monuments themselves, that have attracted the most
attention. S. A. I. Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions (1532-1852 a.d.). New Delhi,
1968, provides an excellent historical background to the buildings. Sarda, Ajmer, is the
best source for non-imperial monuments and remains extremely useful in spite of the
paucity of analysis and illustrations. The Baroda tomb is most recently published by
E. Koch, “Influence of Mughal Architecture,” in Michell (ed.), Ahmadabad , cited
above. For Akbar-period work at Mandu, see Yazdani’s Mandu.

Information on monuments in Hasan Abdal and other sites in modern Pakistan is
difficult to procure. The ASIR is useful. S. R. Dar has prepared volumes of photographs
and plans of Mughal-period monuments in Pakistan. These volumes are not yet
published, but available at the Lahore Museum. They provide invaluable data about
structures otherwise undocumented.

Published material on monuments of Akbar’s period in north India is available,
although it is generally descriptive rather than analytical. Better understood than many
works is the tomb of Muhammad Ghaus, almost invariably included in texts on the
history of Indo-Islamic architecture: Brown and Hoag, for example. Buildings at

340

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Narnaul and other sites in Haryana and Punjab are included in Parihar, Mughal
Monuments in Punjab and Haryana, essentially an annotated list. Although consider-
ably older, G. Yazdani, “Narnaul and its Buildings,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal , in, 1907, remains highly useful. c Abd al-Haqq Muhaddis Dehlavi, Akhbar
al-Akhiyar , Deoband, n.d., completed in 1619, contains useful information on saints
buried in Narnaul. Comparative material in the Deccan is in Desai, “Architecture,” in
History of the Medieval Deccan, Vol. 11. Lowry, “Delhi in the 16th Century,” considers
sub-imperial work there. M. C. Joshi, “Bada Batashewala-Mahal: A Study "Journal of
the Indian Society of Oriental Art , 1, 1977-78, provides an in-depth study of this
monument.

Eastern India, like other regions, is the subject of numerous articles and archaeo-
logical site lists, but modern interpretations are badly needed. The classic source for
Jaunpur remains Fuhrer, The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur , and J. Burton-Page,
“Djawnpur,” Encyclopedia of Islam , illustrates nineteenth-century drawings of a now
destroyed palace pavilion there. Recently Iqbal Ahmad Jaunpuri, History of Sharqi
Rulers and Sufis of Jaunpur, Jaunpur [1988], has produced a massive tome in Urdu that
includes Akbar-period buildings not published elsewhere. Akbar’s fort at Chunar
remains virtually unstudied, although A. F. C. de Cosson, “Chunar,” Bengal Past and
Present, iv, 1909, provides useful illustrations. One inscription at Chunar is included in
ARIE, 1970-71. Robert Skelton, “Shaykh Phul and the Origins of Bundi Painting,” in
Anand Krishna (ed.), Chhavi- 2, Benares, 1981, gives proof that students of the painter
c Abd al-Samad worked in Chunar.

For Bihar, Muhammad Hamid Kuraishi, List of Ancient Monuments Protected
Under Act vii of 1904 in the Province of Bihar and Orissa, Archaeological Survey of
India, New Imperial Series, Vol. li, Calcutta, 1931, remains the standard source. Also
valuable is D. R. Patil, The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar, Patna, 1963. Inscriptions and
much useful historical information is in Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Corpus of Persian and
Arabic Inscriptions of Bihar , Patna, 1973. This present author’s “From Anomaly to
Homogeneity” analyzes the development of a standard mosque type in Bihar during
Akbar’s reign. Asher’s Islamic Monuments of Eastern India provides extensive
documentation for the monuments of Bihar and Bengal.

In addition to general works on Bengal cited in the essay for chapter 1, this author’s
“Inventory of Key Monuments,” in George Michell (ed.), The Islamic Heritage of
Bengal , Paris, 1984, covers the Akbar-period works. Included in the same volume, her
article “The Mughal and Post-Mughal Periods” deals with the development of mosque
architecture there. Although not comprehensive, Shamsud-Din Ahmed, Inscriptions of
Bengal, Vol. iv, Rajshahi, i960, provides the text of many Mughal-period inscriptions.

4 JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Nur al-Din Muhammad Jahangir, Tuzuk-i Jahangiri (tr.), 2 vols., reprint ed., Delhi,
1968, the emperor’s personal memoirs, is the most immediate source for Jahangir’s
attitude toward buildings and gardens. Hereafter this work will be called Tuzuk. Other
contemporary histories, such as Husaini Kamgar, Ma f asir-i Jahangiri, Delhi, 1978,
contain important information not found elsewhere, for example, that Akbar at his
death designated Jahangir his successor. Beni Prasad, History of Jahangir, London,
1922, remains the best secondary treatment of Jahangir’s reign and contains many use-
ful references to architectural projects. Well-known monuments such as Akbar’s tomb
and the tomb of Ptimad al-Daula are included in standard art historical sources: the two

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

works by Brown, and Hoag, Islamic Architecture , all mentioned previously. Most of
the monuments discussed in this chapter, however, are not sufficiently well known to
be included in such standard sources.

Jahangir's early architectural patronage is considered in no single source. The inscrip-
tions on the black throne and the Agra fort are in M. A. Husain, “Arabic and Persian
Inscriptions in the Agra Fort,” El APS , 195 1-52. The career of the throne’s calligrapher
is traced in an important forthcoming article, Z. A. Desai, “Inscription on the
Mausoleum of Mir Abdullah Mushkin-Qalam at Agra.” The only modern consider-
ation of Jahangir and the Allahabad pillar is by this present author, “Jahangir and the
Reuse of Pillars,” in M. C. Joshi (ed.), Archaeological Survey of India Commemoration
Volume , New Delhi, forthcoming. Contemporary references to early work at Vernag,
Hasan Abdal and elsewhere are in Jahangir, Tuzuk.

Shah Begum’s tomb has not been the focus of any recent study. Its inscription is
recorded in Z. A. Desai, “Inscriptions from the Khusraw Bagh, Allahabad,” EIAPS ,
1961, while that on the garden’s entrance gate is in Abdulla Chaghtai, “Aqa Riza
Musawwar,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2nd Session , 1938. Ralph
Finch in Samuel Purchas (ed.), Hakluytus Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes , 20 vols.,
Glasgow, 1905-07: iv, gives contemporary observations on this tomb, and an
eighteenth-century illustration by the Daniells in Mildred Archer, Early Views of India ,
London, 1980, gives an indication of its original appearance. Akbar’s tomb has attracted
considerably more attention, although an interpretative monograph is still needed.
Edmund W. Smith, Akbar’s Tomb , Sikandarah, Archaeological Survey of India, New
Imperial Series, Vol. xxv, Allahabad, 1909, remains the most thorough source for
illustrations, description and inscriptions. In a major study, Wayne E. Begley, “ Amanat
Khan and the Calligraphy on the Taj Mahal,” Kunst des Orients , xn, 1978-79, traces the
career of the gate’s calligrapher. R. Nath, The Immortal Taj Mahal , Bombay, 1972,
discusses the tomb’s architectural development. Contemporary comments about the
tomb and its site are in the Akbar Nama and Jahangir’s Tuzuk , as well as in
Muhammad Baqir Najm-i Sani, Kulliyat , India Office Per. Ms. 1330. Comments of
Europeans and later observers in Mughal India are particularly valuable. These include:
Finch in Purchas, cited above; Sebastien Manrique, Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique
(tr.), 2 vols., Oxford, 1927; Niccolao Manucci, Storia do Mogor or Mogul India ,
1653-1708 (tr.), 4 vols., London, 1907-08; and Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter
Mundy , Vol. 11, London, 1914. Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri (tr.), Delhi, 1978,
in discussing the tomb’s later plunder, gives clues to its meaning and appearance. All
Quranic passages included in the tomb’s calligraphy are in Abdullah Yusuf Ali (ed. and
tr.). The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, 2 vols., Cairo, 1938.

The Tuzuk indicates the emperor’s attitude toward buildings. There he refers to the
provision of public works, while A. M. B. Husain, The Manara in I ndo- Islamic Archi-
tecture, Dacca, 1970, provides a list of the surviving kos minars. Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra
Fort and its Buildings,” Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1903-04,
Calcutta, 1906, includes translations of Mughal texts discussing Jahangir’s construction
at the Agra fort; however, David Price (tr.), Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangueir,
London, 1829, and reprinted several times since, is probably based on a spurious
manuscript. M. A. Husain, “Inscriptions in the Agra Fort,” provides important infor-
mation on the fort. Sculptures of the defeated rana of Mewar and his son are discussed
by Prasad, History of Jahangir, and Sajida S. Alvi, “Religion and State During the Reign
of the Mughal Emperor (1605-27): Nonjuristical Perspectives,” Studia Islamica, lxix,
1 989. Similar images said to be from Akbar’s time are in Michael Brand and Glenn D.

34 2

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

Lowry, Akbar's India: Art from the Mughal City of Victory , New York, 1985. William
Hawkins' discussion of the Agra Fort is in Purchas: 111, while Edward Maclagan, The
Jesuits and the Great Mogul , London, 1932, a major work, documents the Jesuits'
awareness of court ceremony. Milo Cleveland Beach, The Grand Mogul: Imperial
Painting in India , / 600-1 660, Williamstown, 1978, publishes an illustration intended
for the Jahangir Nama with European subjects on the emperor’s throne. In a pivotal
study, Ebba Koch, “The Influence of the Jesuit Mission on Symbolic Representations
of the Mughal Emperors,” in C. W. Troll (ed.), Islam in India s Studies and
Commentaries , Vol. I, New Delhi, 1982, discusses the new-found significance of such
European subject matter in an imperial context.

Basic sources for Jahangir's buildings and inscriptions inside the Lahore fort are Nur
Bakhsh, “Historical Notes on the Lahore Fort and its Buildings,” Annual Report of the
Archaeological Survey of India , /902-oj, Calcutta, 1904; M. W. U. Khan, Lahore and
its Important Monuments ; and Syed Muhammad Latif, Lahore: Its History , Architec-
tural Remains , and Antiquities , Lahore, 1892. Excellent analytical work on the Kala
Burj is by Ebba Koch, “Jahangir and the Angels: Recently Discovered Wall Paintings
under European Influence in the Fort of Lahore,” in J. Deppert (ed.), India and the
West , New Delhi, 1983. For the fort's exterior walls and tile mosaics, see J. P. Vogel, Tile
Mosaics of the Lahore Forty Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series,
Vol. xli, Calcutta, 1920. Ahmad Nabi Khan, “Restoration of the Fresco Decoration at
the Mosque of Maryam Zamani at Lahore,” Pakistan Archaeology , 7, 1970-71, is the
only recent work on this important but rarely considered mosque. The tomb of
Maryam al-Zamani in Agra is included in most Mughal architecture surveys, although
its presumed Lodi origins have never been scrutinized. While Anarkali's tomb is
included in all the standard works on Lahore, only Muhammad Baqir, Lahore y Past and
Presenty Lahore, 1952, challenges the traditional notion that it entombs a concubine.

Aside from Jahangir's own memoirs, cited above, the two best sources for imperial
work at Ajmer and the vicinity remain Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions , and Sarda,
Ajmer. These two works provide basic data, but little interpretation. Paintings of
Jahangir's visits to the shrine of Mu c in al-Din Chishti are in A. K. Das, Mughal Painting
during Jahangir's Time y Calcutta, 1978, and Beach, The Grand Mogul. Thomas Roe,
The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the Court of the Great Mogul , /6/J-/9, 2 vols.,
London, 1899, who visited the Chesma-i Nur, provides a contemporary description,
while c Abd al-Hamid Lahauri, The Padshah Namay 2 vols., Calcutta, 1867, indicates
that the marble pavilions on the Ana Sagar were commenced under Jahangir. Mandu,
Ahmadabad and Agra are described in Jahangir's Tuzuk, and for Mughal-period build-
ings in Mandu see Yazdani, Mandu. Jahangir in his memoirs acutely observes Kashmir
and its gardens. Illustrations and inscriptions are found in G. M. D. Sufi, Kashir f 2 vols.,
reprint ed., New Delhi, 1974, and Crowe and Haywood, The Gardens of Mughal India.
In addition to Jahangir's Tuzuk , Ahmad Rabbani, “Hiran Munara at Shekhupura,” in
S. M. Abdullah (ed.), Armughan-e c Ilumi , Professor Muhammad Shafi c Presentation
Volume , Lahore, 1955, and Ahmad Nabi Khan, “Conservation of the Hiran Minar and
Baradari at Sheikhupura,” Pakistan Archaeology , 6, 19 69, provide significant informa-
tion on his pavilion and minaret at Sheikhupura.

Although it is a topic of major importance, Nur Jahan's patronage is considered in no
single source. Francisco Pelsaert, Jahangir's India: The Remonstr antie of Francisco
Pelsaert (tr.), Cambridge, 1925, and Mundy, Travels of Peter Mundy , provide valuable
information about her patronage and her serai in Agra, known also as Serai Nur Mahal.
The empress' serai in the Punjab has been considered with insight by Wayne E. Begley,

343

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

“Four Mughal Caravanserais Built during the Reigns of Jahangir and Shah Jahan,”
Muqarnas , i, 1983. Ebba Koch, “Notes on the Painted and Sculpted Decoration of Nur
Jahan’s Pavilions in the Ram Bagh (Bagh-i Nur Afshan) at Agra,” in R. Skelton,
A. Topsfield, S. Stronge and R. Crill (eds.), Facets of Indian Art , London, 1986, presents
the best analysis of the queen’s Agra garden, although she appears not wholly con-
vinced that the Gul Afshan garden and Nur Afshan garden are two names for the same
garden. This queen’s most famous project, the tomb of Ptimad al-Daula, is in all basic
works on Mughal art, but the treatment is generally perfunctory. The tomb’s dates and
calligrapher as well as a consideration of its vaulting are only in Koch, “Jahangir and the
Angels.” For the most recent discussion of the origins of pie tr a dura , first seen on this
tomb, see Ebba Koch, Shah Jahan and Orpheus , Graz, 1988. A carpet design similar
to that on the tomb’s floor is in Mulk Raj Anand and Hermann Goetz, Indische
Miniaturen , Dresden, 1967.

Sub-imperial-level architecture outside of the main cities has been badly ignored.
However, Roe, The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe , is a useful source for Ajmer, since he
resided there for several years. The best secondary sources on Ajmer have been
mentioned earlier: Sarda, Ajmer , and Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions. Desai,
Published Muslim Inscriptions of Rajasthan , is important for inscriptions on monu-
ments outside of Ajmer. The writings of the traveler Finch in Purchas: iv gives insights
into monuments he visited in Rajasthan. Day a Ram Sahni, Archaeological Remains and
Excavations at Bairat, Jaipur, n.d., describes the c Idgah in Bairat, not noticed elsewhere.
Work in Ahmadabad has had somewhat better coverage than Mughal architecture in
Rajasthan. The most comprehensive source for monuments in Ahmadabad remains
Burgess, The Muhammadan Architecture of Ahmadabad , although recently superior
illustrations were published in John Burton-Page, “Mosques and Tombs,” in George
Michell (ed.), Ahmadabad , Bombay, 1988. Shaikh Farid’s patronage in Gujarat is
mentioned in Persian sources: Maasir , Farid Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin , and
c Ali Muhammad Khan, Mirat-i Ahmadi (tr.), Baroda, 1965. For Wajih al-Din, see
al-Badayuni, Muntakhab al-Tawarikh. M. A. Chaghatai, “Muslim Monuments of
Ahmadabad through their Inscriptions,” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research
Institute y in, 1942, is invaluable for inscriptions there.

c Inayat Khan, The Shah Jahan Nama of C I nay at Khan (tr.; ed. by W. E. Begley and
Z. A. Desai), Delhi, 1990, discusses Jahangir’s orders for the nobility to build serais
en route to Kashmir. For illustrations of them see Ram Chandra Kak, Antiquities of
Bhimbar and Rajauri , Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 14,
Calcutta, 1923. The writings of Finch, Richard Steel and John Crowther, all in Purchas:
iv, have many useful comments about Lahore and the road to Delhi and Agra. Abdul
Kahir Muhammad Farooqui, Roads and Communications in Mughal India , Delhi,
1977, identifies the main roads and serais through the empire. Begley, “Four Mughal
Caravanserais,” and S. Parihar, “The Mughal Serai at Doraha - Architectural Study,”
East and West , 37, 1987, are the major sources for Serai Doraha. Parihar, Mughal
Monuments in Punjab and Haryana , provides useful data for monuments covered here.
ASIR: xiv gives plans of the tombs at Nakodar; however, the labels are reversed. The
serai at Chatta merits study, but for now the best source is F. S. Growse, Mathura: A
District Memoir , reprint ed., Ahmedabad, 1978.

For Delhi detailed data, though without interpretation, is in the List. Other books,
more descriptive than analytical, to consult are: Carr Stephen, The Archaeology and
Monumental Remains of Delhi , reprint ed., Delhi, n.d., and Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Asar
al-Sanadid , reprint ed., Delhi, 1956. Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , remains the standard

344

JAHANGIR: AN AGE OF TRANSITION

English source for the famous shrine. An outstanding volume in Japanese is Matsuo
Ara, Dargahs in Medieval India , Tokyo, 1977. For Mirza c Aziz Koka’s patronage, see
the Maasir , and also Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin and A. M. Khan, Mirat-i
Ahmadi . For Shaikh Farid, see the sources noted above under Ahmadabad, as well as
ARIE , 1970-71, for his work at Faridabad. Agra is poorly documented for this period.
Edmund W. Smith, Moghul Colour Decoration of Agra , Archaeological Survey of
India, New Imperial Series, Vol. xxx, Allahabad, 1901, remains the only detailed source
for the Kanch Mahal and Suraj Bhan-ka Bagh. Mu c tamad Khan’s mosque is only
mentioned in passing, for example in Syad Muhammad Latif, Agra, Historical and
Descriptive , Calcutta, 1896.

The most important Jahangir-period work in Allahabad, the tombs in the Khusrau
Bagh, is mentioned in several Mughal-period sources, including Manrique, Mundy and
Pelsaert. In addition to materials mentioned in the context of Shah Begum’s tomb
(especially Desai, “Inscriptions from the Khusraw Bagh”), H. Beveridge, “Sultan
Khusrau,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , 1907, gives the inscriptions on the
interior of these tombs; in the 1908 issue of the same journal, R. P. Dewhurst, ‘Inscrip-
tions in the Khusrau Bagh at Allahabad,” provides an addendum to Beveridge’s
comments and translations. R. Skelton, “A Decorative Motif in Mughal Art,” in P. Pal
(ed.), Aspects of Indian Art , Leiden, 1972, discusses the source of the flowering motif-
type that is painted on the tomb’s interior. Archer, Early Views of India , reproduces
illustrations by the Daniells of the tombs in Khusrau Bagh as well as the dargah of
Shah Qasim Sulaiman in Chunar. Thomas William Beale, An Oriental Biographical
Dictionary , rev. ed., London, 1894, gives information about the Chunar saint. For his
shrine, see A. Fuhrer, Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western
Provinces and Oudh , Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. xn,
Allahabad, 1891, as well as de Cosson, “Chunar,” and D. L. Drake-Brockman (ed.),
District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh: Mirzapur , Allahabad,
1911, who also mentions the tomb of Iftikhar Khan. For the inscription at Iftikhar
Khan’s tomb, see ARIE , 1952-53; R. P. Hingorani, Site Index to the A.S.I. Circle
Reports , 1881-1921 , New Delhi, 1978, indicates where the sole published photographs
are available. Jahangir, Tuzuk , and the Maasir provide information on Iftikhar Khan’s
career.

Architecture in Bihar during Jahangir’s reign is best covered in Asher, Islamic
Monuments of Eastern India. Especially valuable for epigraphic and historical infor-
mation is Ahmad, Corpus of Arabic and Persian Inscriptions of Bihar. Also useful are
M. H. Kuraishi, List of Ancient Monuments , Patil, The Antiquarian Remains , and Z. A.
Desai, “Architecture,” in S. H. Askari and Q. Ahmad (eds.), Comprehensive History of
Bihar , Vol. 11, part 1, Patna, 1983.

Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal , remains the standard work for the Jahangir
period there. Recent writings by Asher, “Inventory,” and “The Mughal and Post-
Mughal Traditions,” in The Islamic Heritage of Bengal include works of this time. The
contemporary writings of Mirza Nathan, Baharistan-i-Ghaybi (tr.), 2 vols., Gauhati,
1936, and John Marshall, John Marshall in India , London, 1927, provide insight into the
rapid construction of forts and palaces on the part of the rebel prince Shah Jahan. Also
useful is Francis Buchanan (afterwards Hamilton), Journal of Francis Buchanan Kept
During the Survey of the District of Bhagalpur in 1810-1 /, Patna, 1930.

B. P. Ambastha, Non-Persian Sources on Indian Medieval History , Delhi, 1984, gives
some insight into non-Muslim architectural patronage under Jahangir, but this area is
generally inadequately studied. The most recent work on Datia and Orchha is by

345

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces , but Reuther, Indische Palaste , still should be consulted.
Muhammad Salih Kanbo, c Amal-i Salih , 3 vols., Lahore, 1967, not only praises these
buildings, but also gives insight into political motivations for the subsequent destruc-
tion of some of these temples. Bir Singh’s Keshava Deva temple at Mathura is discussed
by the late seventeenth-century French traveler, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in
India (tr.), 2 vols., London, 1925, and by Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri (tr.),
Calcutta, 1947. Growse, Mathura: A District Memoir , still remains a good source for
the Brindavan temples. Ground-breaking work on Mughal support of these temples is
by Tarapada Mukherjee and Irfan Habib, “Akbar and the Temples of Mathura and its
Environs,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 48th Session, Panajim, Goa,
1988 and “The Mughal Administration and the Temples of Vrindavan during the
Reigns of Jahangir and Shahjahan,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 49th
Session, Dharwad, 1989. The most recent work on Bengal temples in this period is by
David McCutchion, “Architecture,” in George Michell (ed.), Brick Temples of Bengal ,
Princeton, 1983, although the Kharagpur temples are only in Banerji, “Some Post-
Muslim Temples of Bihar.”

5 SHAH JAHAN AND THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF MUGHAL STYLE

In contrast to sources for other major Mughal rulers, no complete histories or
chronicles of Shah Jahan’s reign have been translated into a European language.
Lahauri, Padshah Nama, the official history of the first twenty years of Shah Jahan’s
reign, is available in Persian only. Muhammad Waris, Padshah Nama, succeeded
Lahauri in writing the official history of this reign, but this is available only in
manuscript form. These works are especially valuable for architecture, since most
imperial projects are described in great detail. Kanbo, c Amal-i Salih, is an unofficial
history of Shah Jahan’s entire reign and highly reliable. He, too, describes architectural
projects, although more concisely than the official chroniclers. Kanbo is available in an
Urdu translation, 2 vols., Lahore, 1971-74. Tnayat Khan’s The Shah Jahan Nama of
c Inayat Khan is invaluable for political events, but gives less attention to architecture.
Some useful passages on Shah Jahan’s architecture taken from contemporary chronicles
have been published in various articles. These are cited below in reference to specific
monuments. The writings of Europeans visiting Mughal India also provide insight into
Shah Jahan and his architecture. For example, Francois Bernier, Travels in the Mogul
Empire (tr.), 2nd ed., London, 1914, as well as Tavernier, Travels in India , Manrique,
Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique, Mundy, Travels of Peter Mundy, and Marshall, John
Marshall in India , are useful. The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena,
History of Shahjahan of Dilhi , Allahabad, 1932, who consulted these and other sources.

Shah Jahan is the most famous Mughal patron of architecture. Many of the monu-
ments in this chapter are discussed and illustrated in works mentioned in the
previous chapters: Percy Brown, Indian Architecture , Islamic Period, his “Monuments
of the Mughal Period,” John Hoag, Islamic Architecture, and Andreas Volwahsen,
Living Architecture, provide general overviews. Tnayat Khan, The Shah Jahan Nama,
has many plates.

For Shah Jahan’s patronage as a prince, one must consult primary sources and
Saksena, History of Shahjahan. Shah Jahan’s construction of Jahangir’s tomb is barely
mentioned in Persian sources, remarkable since other projects are detailed. Kanbo
provides the most information, while Lahauri mentions it only briefly. Mu c tamad
Khan, “Iqbal Nama,” in H. M. Elliot and J. Dowson (ed.), The History of India as Told

SHAH JAHAN

by its own Historians , 8 vols., London, 1867-77, provides important information
regarding the site. J. P. Thompson, “The Tomb of the Emperor Jahangir , "Journal of the
Punjab Historical Society , 1, 1911-12, cites passages from contemporary texts, and
remains the best analysis of the tomb’s original appearance. Later sources include:
M. W. U. Khan, Lahore and its Important Monuments , and Baqir, Lahore , Past and
Present. The location of Nur Jahan’s tomb is discussed in the Maasir , while the tomb’s
recent restoration is in “Conservation of Ancient Monuments in West Pakistan,”
Pakistan Archaeology, 7, 1970-71.

In addition to the primary sources, Shah Jahan’s patronage at the dargah of Mu c in
al-Din and at the Ana Sagar is discussed in sources cited earlier: Sarda, Ajmer , and
Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions. Also useful is P. M. Currie, The Shrine and Cult
of Mu c in al-Din Chishti of Ajmer , Delhi, 1989. Ebba Koch, “The Lost Colonnade of
Shah Jahan’s Bath in the Red Fort of Agra,” The Burlington Magazine , cxxiv, 95 1, 1982,
notes that the marble pavilions on the Ana Sagar may not be solely Shah Jahan’s, while
the best source for plans and illustrations is Reuther, Indische Palaste. W. E. Begley,
Monumental Islamic Calligraphy from India , Villa Park, Illinois, 1985, offers insight
into the inscription on the entrance that Shah Jahan provided the dargah of Mu c in
al-Din.

Lahauri, Waris and Kanbo are the key sources for Shah Jahan’s palace architecture.
For construction at the Lahore fort, see Nur Bakhsh, “Historical Notes on the Lahore
Fort,” as well as the relevant sections in Baqir, Lahore , Past and Present ; they include
generous selections from Lahauri and Kanbo. Khan, Lahore and its Important Monu-
ments , and Latif, Lahore , are also useful. Reuther, Indische Palaste , provides good
plates of both the Agra and Lahore forts. Excellent analytical studies by Ebba Koch
touch on issues of Shah Jahan’s work at the Lahore and Agra forts. In addition to her
“The Baluster Column - A European Motif in Mughal Architecture and its Meaning,”
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes , 45, 1982, her other works relevant
here, mentioned previously, include “Lost Colonnade,” and Shah Jahan and Orpheus.
Useful methodical studies of Shah Jahan’s work at the fort, including excerpts from
primary sources, are Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra Fort and its Buildings,” and Muhammad
Ashraf Husain, An Historical Guide to the Agra Fort , Delhi, 1937. Shah Jahan’s inscrip-
tions in the Agra fort are in the same author’s “Inscriptions in the Agra Fort.” Wayne
E. Begley, “The Symbolic Role of Calligraphy on Three Imperial Mosques of Shah
Jahan’s Time” in Joanna G. Williams (ed.), Kaladarsana , New Delhi, 1981, offers a new
interpretation of the Moti mosque and its inscriptions. The same article also discusses
Jahan Ara’s Agra Jami c mosque and the symbolism of its epigraphs. Analysis of the
amounts spent on this fort as well as other architectural projects is provided by Shireen
Moosvi, “Expenditure of Buildings under Shah Jahan - A Chapter of Imperial Financial
History,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 46th Session , Amritsar, 1986.

The Persian chroniclers Waris and Kanbo (especially Vol. 111) are the most
immediate sources for the city of . Shahjahanabad and its palace, while Bernier and
Manucci, mentioned above, provide useful descriptions from a European view. The
most thorough English language description is the List', Vol. 1, Shahjahanabad , is
devoted to the walled city and palace as they appeared at the turn of this century. Much
of Stephen P. Blake, “Cityscape of an Imperial Capital: Shahjahanabad in 1739,” in
R. E. Frykenberg (ed.), Delhi Through the Ages , Delhi, 1986, analyzes Shah Jahan’s
construction of the city and palace, and the same author, “Shahjahanabad, Isfahan and
Istanbul: Sovereign Cities in Medieval Islam,” forthcoming, provides statistics for the
population of the city and palace. Other useful sources include Carr Stephen, The

34 7

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi , and Sharma, Delhi and Its Neigh-
bourhood , as well as H. C. Fanshaw, Shah Jahan’s Delhi - Past and Present , London,
1902. All of these authors owe a tremendous debt to Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Asar
al-Sanadid. This work has been translated into English by R. Nath, Monuments of
Delhi , New Dc^bi, 1979.

For the Shahjahanabad palace, see Gordon Sanderson, “Shah Jahan’s Fort, Delhi,”
Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India , 7977-/2, Calcutta, 1915, where
relevant Persian passages are translated and reference is made to earlier reports on the
fort. In addition to works mentioned in conjunction with the imperial city, Ebba Koch,
Shah Jahan and Orpheus y provides a detailed analysis of the Public Audience Hall
throne and its symbolism. John Burton-Page, “The Red Fort,” in Mortimer Wheeler
(ed.), Splendors of the East y New York, 1965, contains a useful discussion with draw-
ings that show how the palace originally was divided into quadrangles. Ebba Koch,
“Architectural Forms,” indicates Shah Jahan’s conscious modeling of the Shahjahan-
abad Jami c mosque on Akbar’s at Fatehpur Sikri. The inscriptions on the city’s Jami c
mosque have been considered in terms of their religious and political significance by
Wayne E. Begley, “The Symbolic Role of Calligraphy on Three Imperial Mosques,”
while the entire text is in Volume 1 of the List. Monuments outside the walled city, such
as Raushan Ara’s tomb or the Shalimar Bagh, are found in Volumes ii-iv of the List y as
well as in more general texts on the monuments of Delhi. These, however, tend to be
descriptive, not analytical. Bernier, Travels y gives a useful account of Shalimar which he
claims was the emperor’s country estate.

Jeffery A. Hughes, “Shah Jahan’s Lal-Mahal at Bari and the Tradition of Mughal
Hunting Palaces,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1988, provides the sole study
of hunting pavilions at Bari, Rupbas and Mahal. The one at Sheikhupura has received
attention from Rabbani, “Hiran Munara at Shekhupura,” and A. N. Khan, “Conser-
vation of the Hiran Minar and Baradari.” The summer palace at Faizabad is virtually
ignored outside of contemporary Persian chronicles and Fuhrer, Monumental
Antiquities. The location of some hunting palaces is often difficult to find on modern
maps, so a good source for some, but not all, is Irfan Habib, An Atlas of the Mughal
Empire y Delhi, 1982.

For general coverage of Shah Jahan’s gardens, see Moynihan, Paradise as a Garden ,
and Crowe and Haywood, The Gardens of Mughal India. Shah Jahan’s revitalization
of the Bagh-i Hafiz Rakhna is discussed by Subash Parihar, “A Little-Known Mughal
Garden in India: Aam Khas Bagh, Sirhind,” Oriental Art y 31, 1985-86. There is no
detailed study on the Shalimar garden in Kashmir, so the writings of the Persian
chroniclers and Bernier, Travels , remain important sources. More secondary work has
been done on the Lahore Shalimar garden, including Baqir, Lahore: Past and Present y
who quotes extensively from Persian sources. Also useful are S. R. Dar, Historical
Gardens of Lahore , Lahore, 1982, and I. H. Nadiem, “The Hydraulics of Shalamar
Garden,” Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society , 43, 1986.

The publications on the Taj Mahal are many, but most repeat unsupported ideas.
Muhammad Abdulla Chaghtai, Le Tadj Mahal d’Agra, Brussels, 1938, remains a
classic. It was the same author, in “A Family of Great Mughal Architects,” Islamic
Culture , xi, 1937, who first recognized Ustad Ahmad as the architect of the Taj. Nath,
The Immortal Taj y is a useful introduction to the building’s origins and appearance.
W. E. Begley and Z. A. Desai, Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb y Cambridge and
Seattle, 1989, is a superb compilation of seventeenth-century Mughal and European
documentary sources on this famus tomb. It has many plates. Certainly the most

SHAH JAHAN

innovative work on the Taj Mahal is contained in two articles by Wayne E. Begley,
“The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of its Symbolic Meaning,” Art Bulletin ,
lvi, i, 1979, and “Amanat Khan and the Calligraphy of the Taj Mahal,” cited earlier.

Although many passing references are made to the architectural patronage of Jahan
Ara and Dara Shukdh, they are the focus of no single study. Sarda, Ajmer , and Currie,
The Shrine and Cult of Mu c in al-Din Chishti , remain the best secondary sources for the
princess’ patronage at the shrine of Mu c in al-Din. Her construction of Mulla Shah’s
mosque is dismissed by Kanbo: in, and c Inayat Khan, The Shah Jahan Nama of c Inayat
Khan. Beri)ier, Travels , is the only European who mentions the mosque, which he calls
a hermitage. Bikrama Jit Hasrat, Dara Shikuh: Life and Works , New Delhi, 1982,
reveals documentation for Jahan Ara’s devotion to Mulla Shah. Persian chronicles,
especially Kanbo, are excellent sources for Jahan Ara’s garden at Achibal, but Bernier,
Travels , also provides insight. Illustrations are in Crowe and Haywood, The Gardens
of Mughal India , although they credit the entire garden to Jahangir’s reign; the same
work is also a good source for Dara Shukoh’s Pari Mahal. Jahan Ara’s patronage of
Chauburji was first proposed by M. Abdulla Chughtai, “The So-Called Gardens and
Tombs of Zeb-un-Nisa at Lahore,” Islamic Culture , ix, 1935. Subsequent writers such
as M. W. U. Khan, Lahore and its Important Monuments , tentatively accept this
attribution.

Bernier, Travels , specifically states that building in Shahjahanabad was one way to
win imperial favor. Yet the official chronicles offer considerably less insight into sub-
imperial architectural patronage during Shah Jahan’s reign. Instead, biographies of the
nobility, such as the Maasir and Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin , and inscriptions on
the buildings themselves are of primary value. The monuments of Thatta are best
covered by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Thatta: Islamic Architecture, Islamabad, 1982, while
an article in Sindhi by Sayyid Hussamudin Rashidi, whose title may be translated
“Thatta City’s Older Geography,” Mehran , 21, 3/4, 1972, transcribes inscriptions
on the Thatta Jami c mosque. Epigraphic and textual evidence for construction in
Ahmadabad during Shah Jahan’s reign is provided by M. A. Chaghatai, “Muslim
Monuments of Ahmadabad through their Inscriptions,” and c Ali Muhammad Khan,
Mirat-i Ahmadi. A c zam Khan’s serai is in Burgess, Muhammadan Architecture of
Ahmadabad , and more recently in J. Burton-Page, “Mosques and Tombs.” S. H. Desai,
Arabic and Persian Inscriptions of Saurashtura , Junagarh, 1980, publishes the inscrip-
tions of A c zam Khan’s Ranpur buildings.

The sources for sub-imperial architecture in Ajmer have been cited previously: Sarda,
Ajmer , and Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions. In general they deal little with the
structures themselves, but with epigraphs and history. In Rajasthan outside of Ajmer,
Desai, Published Muslim Inscriptions of Rajasthan , is a key source for epigraphic
information, although few of the buildings on which these inscriptions are placed have
been published. Imperial orders affecting the Makrana quarries are in Begley and Desai,
Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb. Additional information on the Makrana quarries is
in K. K. Seghal (ed.), Rajasthan District Gazetteers: Nagaur , Jaipur, 1975.

Comments of European travelers such as Manrique and Bernier are useful for under-
standing Lahore’s cityscape. The work of Wazir Khan, a major sub-imperial patron, is
mentioned by Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin , and in the Maasir. For his Baradari,
see Reuther, Indische Palaste, and M. Abdullah Chaghatai, The Wazir Khan Mosque ,
Lahore, 1976, for this important mosque and baths. For the Gulabi Bagh gate, M. W.
U. Khan, Lahore and its Important Monuments , provides current summaries. Only M.
Abdullah Chaghatai, Masajid-e Lahore , Lahore, 1975, has suggested that the mosque

34 9

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

attributed to Dai Anga was built by Khwaja Maqbul. For a more traditional view, see
most general sources for Lahore’s monuments: Khan, Latif and Baqir, all cited earlier.

The serais between Delhi and Lahore are discussed by Wayne E. Begley, “Four
Mughal Caravanserais,” while his “A Mughal Caravanserai Built and Inscribed by
Amanat Khan, Calligrapher of the Taj Mahal,” in Asher and Gai (eds.), Indian
Epigraphy , deals in depth with Serai Amanat Khan. The tomb at Nakodar is in Parihar,
Mughal Monuments in Punjab and Haryana\ ASIR : xiv publishes a plan of the tomb
but mislabels it as the tomb of Muhammad Mumin. In spite of fine workmanship,
Shaikh Chilli’s madrasa and tomb are virtually unnoticed with the exception of Parihar,
Mughal Monuments in Punjab and Haryana , and ASIR : n. Shah Jahan-period
additions to Bu c Ali Qalandar’s shrine at Panipat are mentioned in the Maasir in
conjunction with the career of Muqarrab Khan and by Fuhrer, The Monumental
Antiquities. The tomb’s inscription is in S. Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjabi
Haryana and Himachal Pradesh , New Delhi, 1985.

Sub-imperial monuments within the walled city of Shahjahanabad from this time are
only in the List : 1. Although Manrique comments that the nobility pay little attention
to the shrine of Nizam al-Din, Kanbo indicates that the emperor himself visited the
shrine from time to time. Zafar Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , cites epigraphs recording Khalil
Allah’s provision of a new veranda at the tomb. The List : 11 supplies inscriptional
evidence indicating that a new serai was built close to the shrine.

Almost all Europeans traveling in India commented on Agra’s size, but notable
among them are Bernier, Tavernier and Mundy. The eunuch Firuz Khan is mentioned
in Mughal sources, perhaps most succinctly in the Maasir , and the tomb has been
published most recently by R. Nath, Some Aspects of Mughal Architecture , New Delhi,
1976. For plans and illustrations of the Chini-ka Rauza, the best source remains
E. Smith, Moghul Colour Decoration of Agra , while W. E. Begley, “Amanat Khan and
the Calligraphy of the Taj Mahal,” posits that the tomb’s calligraphic bands were
probably designed by Amanat Khan, Azfal Khan’s devoted brother. In addition,
Amanat Khan’s Shahi Madrasa mosque is discussed in this important article as well as
in the same author’s Monumental Islamic Calligraphy from India. Agra’s c Idgah is
attributed to Shah Jahan in Latif, Agra , Historical and Descriptive , and ASIR : iv (where
a plan is provided), as well as M. A. Chaghatai, The Badshahi Mosque , Lahore, 1972;
none of these provides reasoning or analysis.

Rustam Khan’s patronage in Sambhal and Moradabad can be understood only by
consulting several sources. These include: Ganga Prasad and H. Blochmann, “On
Sambhal Inscriptions and on Muradabad Inscriptions,” Proceedings of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal , May, 1873; the Maasir ; Bhakkari, Dhakhirat al-Khawanin ; Joshi
(ed.), Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers: Moradabad ; and Fuhrer, Monumental
Antiquities.

In general the best sources to consult for Shah Jahan-period work in Bihar are the
same as those for Bihar cited in the essay for chapter 4. Of special value among these are
Asher, Islamic Monuments of Eastern India and Ahmad, Corpus of Arabic and Persian
Inscriptions of Bihar. In addition, comments by contemporary travelers, most notably
Mundy, and the Maasir are valuable. For an understanding of the complex situation at
Rohtas during Shah Jahan’s reign, see both K. M. Karim, Provinces of Bihar and
Bengal Under Shahjaban, Dacca, 1974, and “Sanscrit Inscription on the Slab Removed
from above the Kothoutiya Gate of the Fort Rohtas, "Journal of the Asiatic Society , vm,
1839; the journal does not credit the author of this article.

A standard work for Bengal during this period is Dani, Muslim Architecture in

35 °

AURANGZEB

Bengal , although it has been updated by Asher, “Inventory,” and “The Mughal and
Post-Mughal Traditions,” in The Islamic Heritage of Bengal. Other useful information
is included in C. A. E. W. Oldham’s appendices in Francis Buchanan (afterwards
Hamilton), Journal of Francis Buchanan', he summarizes the observations of Europeans
who visited the Sangi Dalan in Rajmahal. In addition to Nathan’s Baharistan-i-Ghaybi,
Marshall, John Marshall in India , gives insight into the additions at Teliagarhi made by
Shah Shuja c . This same prince’s additions to the Qadam Sharif shrine in Gaur are best
outlined in M. Abid Ali, Memoirs of Gaur and Pandua , rev. ed., Calcutta, 1931.

To fully understand Shah Jahan’s politically motivated destruction of Hindu temples,
contemporary Persian sources such as Kanbo must be read in context. Most modern
writers, for example Saksena, History of Shahjahan , have not grasped the context of the
Persian sources and so misinterpret the ruler’s motivations. Rai Mukand Das’ con-
struction in Narnaul is recorded by G. Yazdani, “Narnaul and its Buildings,” while his
mansion is discussed in Parihar, Mughal Monuments in the Punjab and Haryana. The
princely palaces of Rajasthan have considerably more coverage than Hindu dwellings
elsewhere. The two best sources for Mirza Raja Jai Singh’s Amber palace are Reuther,
Indische Palaste , and Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces , although Tillotson at times
presents dates and views at variance with those suggested in this volume. Aside from
contemporary texts, a good secondary source for Mirza Raja Jai Singh is Jadunath
Sarkar, A History of Jaipur, rev. ed., New York, 1984. Shah Jahan’s imperial decrees are
in Begley and Desai, Taj Mahal: The Ilumined Tomb. The best and most recent
source for Shah Jahan-period temples in Bengal, including photographs and plans, is
George Michell (ed.), Brick Temples of Bengal.

6 AURANGZEB AND THE ISLAMIZATION OF THE MUGHAL STYLE

Aurangzeb’s reign, a complex yet pivotal period, has long fascinated historians,
especially those concerned with reasons for Mughal political decline. Yet scant atten-
tion has been paid to architecture under this sixth Mughal emperor. In fact Jadunath
Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb , 5 vols., Calcutta, 1925-30, swayed by later legend and
unreliable evidence, has presented this emperor as a religious zealot who was more
eager to destroy than to build. Sarkar’s views reflect popular opinion, even among the
educated. Well-reasoned views to the contrary have been little noticed, for example
S. Moinul Haq in his introduction to Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of c Alamgir
(tr.), Karachi, 1975, Jnan Chandra, “Aurangzib and Hindu Temples,” Pakistan
Historical Society, 5, 1953, and S. N. Sinha, Subah of Allahabad under the Great
Mughals, New Delhi, 1974. When Aurangzeb ordered the destruction of temples, he
did so for political not religious reasons, as indicated, for example, by events leading to
the destruction of the Keshava Deva temple at Mathura described in Saqi Must c ad
Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri; the demolition of temples in Cooch Behar is described by
Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of c Alamgir. He also provides information on the
destruction of temples in Rajasthan, as do Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri, and
Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri. Indication of Mughal maintenance of temples is
in Mukherjee and Habib, “Akbar and the Temples of Mathura,” and “The Mughal
Administration and the Temples of Vrindavan.” A document indicating Aurangzeb’s
appreciation of Ellora is presented in c Inayat Allah Khan Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat
(tr.), Delhi, 1982, while Saqi MusFad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri also admires Ellora’s
beauty. J. Chandra, “Aurangzib and Hindu Temples,” indicates that contrary to
popular belief Aurangzeb supported temples throughout his reign.

35 1

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

A number of contemporary sources provides insight into Aurangzeb's attitude
toward the construction and maintenance of mosques. Khafi Khan, Kbafi Khan's
History of c Alamgir, and c Aqil Khan Razi, Waqi c at-i c Alamgiri (tr.), Delhi, 1946,
indicate Aurangzeb’s interest in repairing old mosques. Aurangzeb’s own letters,
Ruka c at-i c Alamgiri (tr.), reprint ed., Delhi, 1972, and Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i
c Alamgiri y relate the emperor's concern for the maintenance of mosques. Saqi Must c ad
Khan also cites Aurangzeb’s orders for the construction of new mosques and relates
that he once even involved himself in the manual labor. When he captured forts in the
Deccan, Aurangzeb frequently ordered the construction of a mosque, although none
has been published. Sidney Toy, Strongholds of India , London, 1957, mentions a fort,
Shivner, with a surviving Mughal-period mosque, but neither describes nor illustrates
it. c Inayat Allah Khan Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat, records an order issued for the
burial of unused building materials. Contemporary sources for Aurangzeb's Moti
mosque are Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri , Muhammad Kazim, c Alamgir
Nama, Calcutta, 1868, and Tavernier, Travels in India. The Moti mosque, despite its
fame, has received little scholarly attention. Brown, Indian Architecture , Islamic Period ,
provides the best analysis of this mosque. Chaghatai’s monograph, The Badshahi
Mosque , presents much useful information about this Lahore mosque. Baqir, Lahore;
Past and Present , provides additional information. There is no single source for the
Mathura c Idgah. Tavernier, Travels in India , discusses the temple upon which it was
built. Contemporary sources for events leading to the mosque's construction include
Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiriy and Ishwardas Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri.
Later accounts of the c Idgah are by Joseph Tieffenthaler, Description Historique et
Geographique de Tlnde , 5 vols., Berlin, 1786, and Growse, Mathura: A District
Memoir. ASIR: 1 illustrates a plan of the building.

Imperial orders recorded by c Inayat Allah Khan Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibat,
provide insight into Aurangzeb’s attitudes toward royal tombs and saints' shrines.
Other useful sources are Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri, and Nagar, Futuhat-i
c Alamgiri. The prince Aurangzeb’s concern for the Taj Mahal's maintenance is in
Begley and Desai, Taj Mahal: The Illumined Tomb. For Khuldabad and Aurangzeb’s
tomb there, Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of c Alamgir, and Maharashtra State
Gazetteers: Aurangabad District , Bombay, 1977, are the best sources. Aurangzeb’s
attitude toward palaces, gardens and fortifications is found in contemporary sources:
Khafi Khan, Khafi Khan's History of c Alamgir ; Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i c Alamgiri,
Kazim, c Alamgir Nama , Nagar, Futuhat-i c Alamgiri, Kashmiri, Kalimat-i Taiyibaty and
Aurangzeb, Ruka c at-i c Alamgiri. Discussion of Aurangzeb’s gates at the Shahjahanabad
palace is in the List : 1.

Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb , is the most accessible source for members of
Aurangzeb's family. For their patronage, however, there is no single source. The most
recent discussion of the Bibi-ka Maqbara is in W. E. Begley, “ c Ata Allah,” Macmillan
Encyclopedia of ArchitectSy Vol. 1, New York, 1982, and it includes a useful
bibliography. Valuable documents relating to this tomb’s construction are in M. A.
Nayeem, Mughal Documents: Catalogue of Aurangzeb's Reign, Vol. 1, part 1,
Hyderabad, 1980. For work in Delhi, several sources, all catalogue-like in nature, are
useful. Jahan Ara’s tomb is in Hasan, Nizamu-d Din, while the now destroyed
tombs of Zeb al-Nisa and Zinat al-Nisa are in Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Asar al-Sanadid.
Zinat al-Nisa's mosque is discussed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan as well as by Sharma,
Delhi and Its Neighbourhood, Carr Stephen, The Archaeology and Monumental
Remains of Delhiy and the List: 1. This volume of the List includes a map of the

352

AURANGZEB

walled city indicating the location of each monument, although no illustrations are
provided.

As is the case for the entire Mughal period, sub-imperial work is sorely neglected.
The sources for buildings in Ajmer are the same as noted in previous chapters: Sarda,
Ajmer , and Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions. As noted earlier these works are
concerned largely with inscriptions and history, with less emphasis on the monuments
themselves. The Merta Jami c mosque’s inscriptions are in Desai, Published Muslim
Inscriptions of Rajasthan , while the only published plate of the mosque building is in
Seghal (ed.), Rajasthan District Gazetteers: Nagaur. Buildings in Ahmadabad have
attracted more attention than those elsewhere in western India. Textual evidence for

Muhammad A c zam Shah’s palace construction is in c Ali Muhammad Khan, Mirat-i
Ahmadi . Burgess, Muhammadan Architecture of Ahmadabad , remains the classic
work, but Burton-Page, “Mosques and Tombs,” provides excellent plates.

The condition of contemporary Lahore is astutely observed by Bernier, Travels. Dai
Anga’s tomb, the only significant surviving Aurangzeb-period monument there, is in
previously mentioned standard books on Lahore: M. W. U. Khan, Lahore and its
Important Monuments and Latif, Lahore. Most monuments along the Lahore-Delhi
road are included in Parihar, Mughal Monuments in Punjab and Haryana , and some
relevant inscriptions are recorded by the same author’s Muslim Inscriptions. Neera
Darabari, Northern India under Aurangzeb: Social and Economic Condition , Meerut,
1982, is useful for understanding the need for more caravan serais.

In north India more attention has been paid to the sub-imperial architecture of Delhi
than elsewhere. Two important articles for understanding the condition of Delhi
during Aurangzeb’s reign are Satish Chandra, “Cultural and Political Role of Delhi,
1675-1725,” and Blake, “Cityscape of an Imperial Capital,” both in Frykenberg (ed.),
Delhi Through the Ages. In general, structures inside the walled city are in the List: 1,
while those outside the Shahjahanabad city walls are in the List : 11. These volumes,
prepared as an administrative manual, are invaluable for locating monuments, but
contain neither analysis nor plates. In addition, see Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , for the doors
to Amir Khusrau’s tomb, ASIR: iv for the mosque of Nasir Daulat, and S. M. Yunus
Jaffery’s unpublished MS., “The Madrasa-i Ghaziuddin,” for buildings south of the
city. The Mathura Jami c mosque is discussed by Brown, Indian Architecture , Islamic
Period , and Growse, Mathura: A District Memoir , while Saqi Must c ad Khan, Maasir-i
c Alamgiri , is a useful contemporary source. Although fine monuments, the mosques of
Gwalior and Benares remain largely unnoticed by modern scholars. The best source for
the Gwalior Jami c mosque remains ASIR: 11, although notations correcting its location
are in ARIE , 1969-70. Mu c tamad Khan, qal c adar of the Gwalior fort, is mentioned in
contemporary histories, notably those by Khafi Khan and Saqi Must c ad Khan. Sinha,
Subah of Allahabad under the Great Mughals , provides the best rationale for
Aurangzeb’s destruction of the Vishvanath temple in Benares, although J. Chandra,
“Aurangzib and Hindu Temples,” is also helpful. The destroyed temple whose style
indicates that it dates to the late sixteenth century is described by Tavernier, Travels in
India. A plan and drawing of the temple as well as the Gyanvapi mosque built from its
ruined walls are provided by James Prinsep, Benares Illustrated , Calcutta, 1833. The
Jami c mosque at Benares’ Panchganga Ghat was also illustrated by Prinsep in the same
volume, although the more famous view is by the Daniells in Archer, Early Views of
India. Pierre-Daniel Coute and Jean-Marie Leger, Benares , un Voyage Architectural ,
Paris, 1989, are the only modern authors to consider the Benares mosques.

The sources for Bihar mentioned in the essay for chapter 4 remain the best for this

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

same area during Aurangzeb’s reign. These include works by Asher, Ahmad, Kuraishi
and Patil. For Bengal a standard work is Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal ; Asher,
“Inventory,” and “The Mughal and Post-Mughal Periods,” provide more recent
analysis. S. M. Ashfaque, Lalbagh Fort , Karachi, 1970, is a useful monograph on the
Lalbagh garden complex. For the flourishing Hindu building tradition in Bengal,
Michell (ed.). Brick Temples of Bengal , gives the fullest picture. Sub-imperial architec-
ture in eastern India remains much better studied than that in the Deccan. Only Desai,
“Mughal Architecture,” ch. iv (iii) in Sherwani (ed.), History of the Medieval Deccan ,
and the Maharashtra District Gazetteers: Aurangabad have considered Aurangzeb-
period structures in the Deccan.

7 ARCHITECTURE AND THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY UNDER

THE LATER MUGHALS AND THEIR SUCCESSOR STATES

The extensive bibliography of works on political decline and historical developments
under the later Mughals includes hardly a single volume on the arts. A case in point is
the fine volume in this series, C. A. Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British
Empire , Cambridge, 1988, whose bibliography includes few references to works on the
arts. Nevertheless, substantive information can be gleaned from works not specifically
devoted to the subject. For example, recent studies by Blake, “Cityscape of an Imperial
Capital,” and S. Chandra, “Cultural and Political Role of Delhi,” indicates that Delhi
continued to flourish well into the eighteenth century. For monuments in Delhi prior
to 1 739, a variety of sources is available. Valuable analysis of Shah c Alam , s and Farrukh
Siyar’s provisions at the shrine of Bakhtiyar Kaki is by Ara, Dargahs. Although less
substantive, Carr Stephen, The Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi ,
Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood , Fanshaw, Shah Jahans Delhi , and S. A. Khan,
Asar al-Sanadid, all provide important information. Muhammad Shah’s monuments are
discussed in the above four sources. In addition, the List: 1 mentions the wooden
mosque he built in the Shahjahanabad palace, and Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , provides the
best discussion of his tomb. Z. Malik, The Reign of Muhammad Shah , New York, 1977,
discusses Raushan al-Daula, an active patron both before and after the 1739 invasion of
Nadir Shah. His mosques and a few others are in Carr Stephen, Fanshaw (where an
illustration is provided) and Sayyid Ahmad Khan. But the most extensive coverage for
Raushan al-Daula’s mosques and others within the walled city is in the List : 1. The
Tripolia and Jai Singh’s observatory, outside the city walls, are in the List: 11. Mention
of these is also in Carr Stephen, Sharma and S. A. Khan. A detailed account of Sawai Jai
Singh and his observatory is in G. R. Kaye, The Astronomical Observatories of Jai
Singh , Archaeological Survey of India, New Imperial Series, Vol. xl, Calcutta, 1918.

S. Chandra, “Cultural and Political Role of Delhi,” observes Delhi’s quick revival
immediately after the 1739 invasion. For post- 1739 monuments there is little modern
scholarship. H. Goetz, “The Qudsia Bagh at Delhi: Key to Late Mughal Architecture,”
Islamic Culture , xxiv, 1, 1952, remains the main source for Qudsiya Begum’s palace and
garden complex, although the attitude is dated. Her Sunahri mosque is discussed in List:
1, S. A. Khan, Asar al-Sanadid , and Carr Stephen, while her beneficence at the Qadam
Sharif and the Shahi Mardan shrine is in List: 11 and S. A. Khan. Safdar Jang’s tomb is
included in most general works on the monuments of Delhi (for example, Stephen,
S. A. Khan, Brown), while a thorough description is in the List: 11.

Recently coherent pictures of late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Delhi have
emerged in N. Gupta, Delhi Between Two Empires, 180J-31: Society, Government and

354

THE LATER MUGHALS

Urban Growth , Delhi, 1981, and the same author’s “Delhi and its Hinterland: The
Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Frykenberg, Delhi Through the Ages .
In this same volume C. Bayly, “Delhi and Other Cities in North India During the
‘Twilight’,” and S. Noe, “What Happened to Mughal Delhi: A Morphological Survey,”
add substantially to this view. Monuments, however, have not been considered in
recent work, so the List: 1 remains the only good source for buildings inside the walled
city. A very few structures of this date, however, are in Stephen, The Archaeology and
Monumental Remains of Delhi , as well as S. A. Khan, Asar al-Sanadid. The List : 11 is the
primary source for material outside the walled city, but Volumes in and iv are also of
use. Ara, Dargahs , and Hasan, Nizamu-d Din , should be consulted for work at the
Chishti shrines, while Stephen and S. A. Khan provide general information on late
Mughal structures south of the walled city.

Published work on architecture in the Mughal hinterlands and the splinter states is
uneven. Monuments even in Ajmer remain little studied. In addition to Sarda, Ajmer ,
and Tirmizi, Ajmer through Inscriptions , pertinent historical information about the
Sayyid family is found in Khafi Khan, “Muntakhab al-Lubab,” in H. M. Elliot and
J. Dowson (eds.), History of India as Told by its own Historians , 8 vols., reprint ed.,
Allahabad, 1964: vn; and information about Mu c in al-Din’s shrine is in Rustam c Ali,
“Tarikh-i Hind,” in Vol. vm of the same series. A good syncretic treatment of Jaipur’s
history and layout is in A. K. Roy, History of Jaipur City , New Delhi, 1978, and more
recently in Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces. Reuther, Indische Palaste , should be
consulted for illustrations.

Later Mughal architecture in Lahore is perfunctorily covered in Latif, Lahore , and
M. W. U. Khan, Lahore and its Imperial Monuments. A recent study of a single late
Mughal monument is M. Khokhar, “The Tomb of Sharaf un-Nisa Begum Known as
Sarvwala Maqbara at Lahore,” Pakistan Journal of History and Culture , 3, 1982. Archi-
tecture under the Sikhs needs more modern consideration, but for now see P. S. Arshi,
Sikh Architecture in the Punjab , New Delhi, 1986, and the same author’s The Golden
Temple , New Delhi, 1989. For the late Mughal history of the Agra region, see Bayly,
“Delhi and Other Cities in North India.” The palaces at Dig and Bharatpur are
discussed by Tillotson, The Rajput Palaces , while M. C. Joshi, Dig , New Delhi, 1971, is
a good monograph on the site and contains a useful bibliography. The only source for
late Mughal Mathura and Govardhan remains Growse, Mathura: A District Memoir ,
while some of the temples at Brindavan are listed in Roy, History of Jaipur City.

The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century architecture of Awadh, unlike contem-
porary material in Delhi and most of north India, is the subject of much recent
scholarship. Rosie Llewellyn-Jones, A Fatal Friendship: The Nawabs , the British , and
the City of Lucknow , Delhi, 198 5, is an excellent work on the architecture of the Awadh
nawabs. Keith Hjortshoj, Urban Structures and Transformations in Lucknow y India ,
Cornell University Press, 1979, is a careful study of the transformation of public and
private spaces in Lucknow. Two works by B. Tandon are concerned with the
morphology of buildings in Faizabad and Lucknow: “The Architecture of the Nawabs
of Avadh Between 1722 and 1856 a.d.: A Descriptive Inventory and an Analysis of
Types,” dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1978, and “The Architecture of the
Nawabs of Avadh, 1722-56,” in R. Skelton, A. Topsfield, S. Strong and R. Crill (eds.).
Facets of Indian Art , London, 1986. Joshi (ed.), Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers:
Faizabad , is another useful source. For an insightful picture of Nawabi Lucknow
culture, see A. H. Sharar, Lucknow: The Last Phase of an Oriental Culture (tr.),
Boulder, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

In spite of the fame of Benares, P. Coute and J. Leger, Benares , un Voyage Architec-
tural, is the only modern consideration of its structural remains. The most extensive
coverage for late Mughal architecture in Bihar is Asher, Islamic Monuments of Eastern
India , although additional coverage of the tomb of Shamsher Khan is in Kuraishi, List
of Ancient Monuments. Patil, The Antiquarian Remains, includes some of the works
discussed here, while Ahmad, Corpus of Persian and Arabic Inscriptions of Bihar,
discusses inscriptions on the buildings, but not the structures themselves.

The classic works on Murshidabad are J. H. T. Walsh, A History of Murshidabad
District , London, 1902, P. C. Majumdar, The Musnud of Murshidabad , Murshidabad,
1905, and L. S. S. O’Malley, Murshidabad , Calcutta, 1914. More recent studies include
Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal, Asher, “Inventory,” and “The Mughal and Post-
Mughal Periods.” Asher’s forthcoming study, “Murshidabad: Regional Revival and
Islamic Continuity,” in A. L. Dallapiccola and S. Zingel-Ave Lallemant (eds.), Islam
and Indian Regions , / 000-/7/0 ad, provides a new interpretation of structures there as
well as a more substantial bibliography. The palace is best discussed in Sten Nilsson,
European Architecture in India , ij$q-i 850, London, 1968.

ADDENDUM

Ebba Koch, Mughal Architecture: An Outline of its History and Development
(1526-1858), Munich, 1991, appeared too late to be included in the bibliographical
essay. A particular strength of this book is its discussion of the morphology of Mughal
buildings. Its plates and especially its plans serve as an excellent companion to this
volume.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The New Cambridge History of India"

See other formats